Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

West Thurrok Estate Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Copy ordered,
of Return containing an Epitome of the Reports from the Committees of Public Accounts, 1857 to 1937, and the Treasury Minutes thereon, with an Appendix and an Index."— [Mr. Morgan Jones.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT VISA FEES (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

I. Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a further statement in connection with the abolition of passport visa charges between Great Britain and the United States of America; and what is the British Government's present attitude with regard thereto?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): As the hon. Member is aware, the visa fee was mutually reduced to two dollars, or the equivalent in local currency, by an arrangement concluded with the United States Government last year. No alteration has taken place in the position since that arrangement was concluded and the attitude of His Majesty's Government remains unchanged. I would remind the hon. Member that United States citizens visiting this country on organised tours with a fixed itinerary, who travel below first-class on board ship and who do not remain in the United Kingdom more than 14 days, can obtain a special visa at a fee of 20 cents.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether he offer for the reciprocal arrangement circulated in Command Paper 2476 of 1926 is still open?

Mr. Butler: I shall have to study the document to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether, as Chinese workers are now allowed by the Japanese military at Shanghai to travel on the overhaul tramcars in Yangtzepoo and Hongkew, he will renew the pressure on the Japanese authorities to obtain freedom for the tramway company to extend its service in this area for the use of Chinese workers in British mills and factories which are at present gravely embarrassed for want of transport for their workers?

Mr. Butler: The Japanese naval and military authorities at Shanghai have agreed to permit tram company workmen to travel in trams proceeding to Yangtzepoo for the purpose of overhaul. Permission for Chinese workmen of other British concerns to travel in trams is, however, still refused on the score of "military necessity and the maintenance of peace and order." Representations are being made, both in Shanghai and Tokyo, to obtain the removal of these restrictions.

II. Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, while the Japanese military authorities in China refuse to allow foreign vessels to ply on the inland creeks and canals around Shanghai, the Japanese company Nisshin Kisen Kaisha are operating at least 150 vessels on these waterways; and whether he will take immediate steps to end this discrimination?

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, while the Japanese military authorities in China continue to refuse passage in the Yangtze to foreign shipping on the plea of floating mines, military necessities, and other subterfuges, Japanese mercantile ships are plying regularly between Shanghai, Nanking and Wuhu; and whether he will take steps to end this discrimination, if necessary, by detailing a gunboat to convoy British mercantile ships on the Yangtze?

Mr. Butler: According to reports from Shanghai, it would appear that discrimination is in fact being practised against British shipping, both on the Yangtse and on other inland waterways of China. Frequent representations have been made, both in Tokyo and Shanghai, on this subject, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo is continuing to press the Japanese Government. The institution of some sort of convoy system has received consideration, but, so far as I am aware, there is at present no demand for it on the part of the companies concerned.

Mr. Morgan Jones: May we be told the exact reply of the Japanese Government to these repeated representations?

Mr. Butler: We are continuing to press for a formal reply.

Mr. Jones: Has no reply been received yet?

Mr. Chorlton: Cannot anything more be done to get results, in view of the fact that our trade is suffering and the Japanese trade is going on all the time?

Commander Marsden: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the strong economic weapon that we have, in regard to allowing Japanese ships access to the port of Hong Kong?

Mr. Butler: It is because His Majesty's Government realise the importance of this subject that we are continuing to exert pressure on the Japanese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (NON-INTERVENTION COMMITTEE).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on yesterday's full meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): A plenary meeting of the committee was held yesterday, under the chairmanship of my Noble Friend. The committee had before them the text, prepared by the Chairman's Sub-Committee, of a proposed resolution reaffirming and extending the Non-Intervention Agreement, and providing for the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain, for the grant in certain circumstances of belligerent rights to the two parties in Spain, and for the

observation of the Spanish frontiers by land and sea. I am glad to be able to report that the committee agreed to adopt the plan proposed and requested the United Kingdom Government to transmit it at once on their behalf to the two Spanish parties for their approval. In consequence of the foregoing decision, the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy yesterday paid to the International Board contributions amounting to £12,500 each, to enable the next stage of the preparatory work to be undertaken. The committee further agreed to ask the United Kingdom Government to arrange for the publication of the text of the plan immediately after it has been communicated to the two Spanish parties. Arrangements have been made for the transmission as rapidly as possible of the plan to His Majesty's Minister at Barcelona and to the Acting-British Agent at Burgos, and it is hoped that it will be handed to the two Spanish parties on Friday. If so the text will be made available to hon. Members on Monday.

Mr. Henderson: Is it expected that some time will elapse before the replies are received from both parties in Spain?

The Prime Minister: Some time, I suppose, must elapse before the replies are received, but I hope it will not be long.

Mr. Thorne: Now that you have got 28 countries together and the machinery working, is it not possible to try to get an arrangement for the abolition of bombing planes altogether?

Mr. G. Strauss: Is it not possible for the Prime Minister to say whether the scheme for sea control provides for observation of goods and men going to Spain by way of Morocco?

The Prime Minister: The best thing would be for the hon. Member to await the text of the plan.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government made any representations to the French Government suggesting the desirability of closing the Franco-Spanish frontier?

The Prime Minister: In the course of normal interchanges of view with the French Government, His Majesty's Government have stressed the desirability of


avoiding action calculated to prejudice the execution of the Non-Intervention Committee's plan. They never suggested that, in present circumstances, the French Government should take unilateral action in closing their frontier.

Mr. Strauss: May we take it that the action of the French Government in closing their frontier was taken quite independently, and that there was no pressure or representation whatever by the British Government upon the French Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It was independent action by the French Government.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Was an intimation given about the Portuguese frontier on this occasion?

Mr. Gallacher: Instead of executing the plans of the committee——[Interruption.]

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether an international commission of inquiry is to be sent to investigate the bombing of Blanes, in Spain, as requested by the Spanish Government?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are making every effort to arrange for an international commission to be formed which will proceed, at the request of the competent Spanish authorities, to any town which has suffered aerial bombardment.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not possible to expedite the sending of this commission in view of the fact that every day Franco's aeroplanes are destroying civilian lives and property?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government realise the importance of expediting the formation of the commission, but the action to be taken depends upon the replies to be received from certain foreign Governments and we hope that those replies will soon arrive.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: What about the towns in the Franco part of the country that have been bombed?

Mr. Thorne: Does the hon. Member know that Signor Mussolini has sent 28,000 troops?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: asked the Prime Minister whether, if the

international commission proceeds to Republican Spain to inquire into the nature of bombing objectives, the commission will also visit Majorca and the numerous open towns and villages in that part of Spain held by General Franco which have suffered severe casualties from air raids?

Mr. Butler: The commission will be at the disposal of both parties in Spain and will be prepared, at the request of the competent Spanish authorities, to visit any town which has suffered aerial bombardment.

Mr. Gallacher: Has any request been made by the rebel authorities for a visit by the commission?

Sir H. Croft: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the international commission proceeding to Spain to inquire into the effects of air raids, the commission will also visit any towns conquered by the armies of General Franco where assassinations and massacres of inhabitants are alleged, and, report thereon?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Its activities will be restricted to the purpose originally proposed.

Sir H. Croft: If I hand to my hon. Friend an unsolicited cable from the mayor and every corporation, practically, in Castellon, confirming the massacres that have taken place, will he receive it and give the matter further consideration?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider any material sent me by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. James Griffiths: What is the reason that private Members cannot get replies from the Government on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCO-TURKISH AGREEMENTS.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the negotiations which have recently taken place between France and Turkey relating not only to their general relations but also with regard to the Sanjak of Alexandretta?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the agreement between France and Turkey concerning


the Sanjak of Alexandretta in substitution for the plan adopted by the Council of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: I have no detailed information regarding the agreements resulting from the negotiations in question, beyond the fact that there were signed at Antioch on 3rd July agreements regarding the internal and external security of the Sanjak and that a Treaty of Friendship and a supplementary Declaration were signed at Angora on 4th July.

Mr. Henderson: Are not the results of these negotiations likely to prove a valuable aid to the stabilisation of world peace and world good will?

Mr. Butler: I sincerely hope so.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that this new agreement is in substitution of an agreement reached by the Council of the League of Nations, is it proposed to report the matter to the League and get the necessary consents to the change in the agreement?

Mr. Butler: I have not yet seen the text of the agreement, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to fix a date by which the conditions preceding the ratification of the British-Italian agreement must be in operation?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have repeatedly stated that they are not in a position to give full effect to this agreement, which is not made subject to ratification, until they can regard the Spanish question as settled. At the same time, as I stated in this House on 22nd June, His Majesty's Government are anxious to see the agreement brought into force at the earliest possible date consistent with the fulfilment of the above-mentioned condition.

Mr. Davidson: Does not the Prime Minister think that the procedure of the Non-Intervention Committee has reached the stage at which a definite date can now be fixed, and does he not further think that fixing such a date would hasten the withdrawal of troops and the procedure of ratification, so that this agreement can come into operation?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not think either of those things.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMEL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the position in Memel and recent disturbed conditions there?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's ChargÉ d'Affaires at Kovno, who has just returned from a visit to Memel, reports that somewhat serious rioting took place at the port on 20th June and again on 28th June, when demonstrations by German Memellanders on the arrival of German steamers were followed by clashes between them and Lithuanians, resulting on the latter occasion in the death of one Lithuanian and the wounding of others by the autonomous police. Mr. Preston is satisfied, however, that both the Lithuanian and the autonomous authorities are alive to the necessity of preventing a recurrence of such incidents; and I have reason to hope that the situation, which had been generally quiet and satisfactory before the incidents took place, will now return to normal.

Mr. Mander: Is there any reason to suppose that the Lithuanian Government and the Government in Memel have in any way failed to carry out their obligations under the Statute?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SWITZERLAND).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that, in accordance with the resolution passed at, the last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, Switzerland is no longer bound to participate in economic or financial sanctions, other members of the League are now freed from their obligations to Switzerland on this matter so far as the Covenant is concerned?

Mr. Butler: This point was dealt with by the Rapporteur on this question in his speech before the Council on 14th May. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this speech, and of the remarks by another member of the Council to which the Rapporteur was referring.

Mr. Mander: In the view of the British Government, is it the case that, now that Switzerland expects to give no help to any other member of the League, she herself still expects any help under the Covenant from other members of the League?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will refer to the speech of the Rapporteur, he will see the importance that has been attached to the principles of the Covenant.

Mr. A. Henderson: Are we to understand that no decision was actually taken by the Council of the League?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

TORPEDO FACTORY, GREENOCK (MR. M. SUTHERLAND).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Murdoch Sutherland, of 51, Holmscroft Street, Greenock, was employed as a solderer at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock, until 23rd April, 1938, when he was discharged with four other solderers in consequence of work being transferred to Alexandria; that he was offered work at the Alexandria auxiliary establishment, which he was compelled to refuse as he was unable to obtain accommodation; that, after a week's unemployment, he obtained work in Greenock at his trade as a plumber but has been refused his holiday pay; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware that Sutherland was discharged from the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock, under the circumstances narrated by the hon. Member. At the majority of Admiralty establishments, including the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, leave is given in a closed week in August, and the privilege is confined to workpeople who are in the Admiralty service at the time. I regret that Sutherland does not fulfil this condition.

MINES DESIGN DEPARTMENT (ASSISTANTS' AND LABOURERS' PAY).

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty

the amount of the weekly pay of Admiralty appointed laboratory assistants, employed in the mines design department of His Majesty's Ship "Vernon," and that of unskilled labourers in the same department?

Mr. Cooper: The pay of the laboratory assistants ranges from 4os. a week at the age of 19 to 7os., rising exceptionally to 85s., a deduction of 2s. 6d. per week being made for each year below the age of 19 on entry. The pay of the unskilled labourers is 53s. a week, which includes the industrial bonus of 20S.

MERCHANTMEN (GUN-FITTING).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the average time taken during the War of 1914–18 to fit merchantmen with guns for defence against submarine attack?

Mr. Cooper: I. The time required varied considerably according to the nature of the armament to be mounted and the structural arrangements in the particular ship. An average time would be eight to 10 days in ships which had not previously been stiffened. 2. In ships which had previously been stiffened to enable them to mount defensive armament, the time required in most cases did not exceed three days.

HONG KONG (BRITISH SHIPPING, PROTECTION).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Fletcher asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the circumstances under which the British naval authorities at Hong Kong have announced that they will not tolerate Japanese interference with British shipping?

Mr. Cooper: No announcement in these terms has been made by the Naval authorities at Hong Kong. Japanese authorities were informed last September that, if a Japanese warship had genuine reason to suspect that a vessel flying the British flag was not entitled to do so, no objection would be taken to Japanese naval officers boarding the ship and examining the certificate of registry for the sole purpose of verifying its nationality, provided an immediate report was made to the British Naval authorities, but that no further interference could be acquiesced in. A reminder of this procedure was recently given by the British Naval authorities in China to the local British


shipping firms, following a tendency on the part of the Japanese to go beyond mere verification of flag when dealing wirh British merchant ships.

NAVY WEEK.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons why with 397,361 attendances at the three naval ports for Navy Week last year, only £10,887 was allocated to men's charities, whereas in 1930, with 288,688 attendances, £12,540 was devoted for this purpose, observing that Is. entrante fee is charged to adults and 6d. to children, as well as car-park and other charges; whether he will cause a proper balance sheet, showing the gross receipts and expenditure for 1937, including details of officials' salaries, etc., to be published in Fleet Orders and issued to the Press, in-stead of the net proceeds and excess of income over expenditure account published on 25th June, 1938; and, as this money is obtained from the general public, whether he will cause copies of such complete balance sheets to be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons?

Mr. Cooper: The allocation of Navy Week Profits is decided by the Managing Trustees of the Navy Weeks Trust, who are the Commanders-in-Chief at Ports-mouth, Devonport and Chatham, and the Director of Personal Services. Until I933 all profits were paid at once to Naval charities, but from 1934 onwards sums have been set aside to finance sub-sequent Navy Weeks, to form a reserve investment fund, to meet capital expenses necessary as a result of the increased attendances, and to provide for some distribution to the various charities should circumstances arise to prevent the holding of Navy Week in any particular year. Proper balance sheets are drawn up each year by chartered accountants appointed by the Trustees, and, if the hon. Member applies to the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, who is the senior Managing Trustee, a copy could be sent to him. As public funds are not involved, I do not think that the question of laying balance sheets upon the Table of this House arises.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have not the overhead expenses in connection with Navy Week increased very much, especially as regards the salaries paid for

doing what was at one rime done voluntarily?

Mr. Cooper: I could not answer that question without notice, but I do not think they have increased out of proportion to the general increase in the expenses of the undertaking.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what Votes of the Navy Estimates the officer and four ratings are borne and paid who are now engaged on a month's tour of the Mid-lands with a three-ton lorry and model ship on a trailer, in an attempt to popularise Navy Week and air recruiting; what expenses will be incurred, and whether these expenses will be a charge on Navy Week or recruiting or other funds; whether the lorry and trailer are insured against all risks, and, if so, from what funds; whether, in the event of death or disablement during these duties, the proper pensions would be paid, and from what funds; and, as such duties are mainly recruiting work, why they are not performed by the retired recruiting staff, instead of active service personnel; and whether he will give the same in-formation, where applicable, about the officer and 10 ratings to be stationed at Charing Cross Underground Station in connection with Navy Week and recruiting?

Mr. Cooper: The ordinary pay and allowances of the officer and four ratings concerned, which involve no additional cost to the public, are borne by Navy Vote I. Ali other expenses arising from the tour, including the insurance of the personnel, the lorry and the trailer against all risks, are borne by the Navy Week organisarion, and involve no charge to public funds. In the event of death or disablement of the personnel, the appropriate pensions would be paid as a charge to Navy Votes in the first in-stances, but would be recoverable under the insurance to which I have referred. Recruiting staff are not employed, as the tour is organised primarily to advertise Navy Week, and not for purposes of recruiting, and the duty would not be appropriate to the official recruiting organisation. The foregoing considerations apply generally to the officer and ratings to be stationed at the Navy Week exhibition in Charing Cross Underground Station.

TRAVELLING EXPENSES (RATINGS AND BOYS).

Mr. Cape: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what allowances, if any, are granted to naval ratings when their ship is in a home port, as travelling expenses, to and from their homes?

Mr. Cooper: Naval ratings, other than boys, pay their own expenses of travelling on leave, but by arrangement with the railway companies they pay half the ordinary fare. Boys in the training establishments are allowed a free return ticket twice a year, and other boys once a year.

GOLD COAST (COCOA INDUSTRY).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the measures taken by the Government of the Gold Coast to regulate the export of cocoa?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) on 4th May, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

CHILD LABOUR.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Labour Adviser to his Department was consulted before the minimum age for contract child labour in Kenya was fixed at 10 years?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. The Labour Adviser had not taken up his duties at the time when the Ordinance containing this provision was enacted.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Is this matter being carefully examined by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. MacDonald: An inquiry is going on.

Mr. Adams: Was the Minister himself consulted before this enactment was put into force?

Mr. MacDonald: I think he must have been consulted in some form. The hon. Member will appreciate that it was before

I myself actually went back to the Colonial Office, but I am quite certain that he must have been consulted in some form.

Mr. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether adequate time is at the disposal of medical officers in Kenya for the examination of children recruited for labour; and whether these officers are able to make full inquiries into the nutritional condition of the children?

Mr. MacDonald: As I informed the House, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on 22nd June, I am in communication with the Governor on these matters; and as soon as his report is received I will let the hon. Member have the information for which he asks.

Mr. Riley: Do the medical officers examine these children before they are allowed to go to the plantations?

Mr. MacDonald: That is exactly the question I am going to inquire into.

Mr. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that adult labour recruited in South Africa has to go through a period of about two weeks of careful feeding before full work is expected; and what precaution is he taking against the danger of undermining children's health in Kenya from this cause?

Mr. MacDonald: The Kenya Employment Ordinance requires that all employÉs shall be properly fed, and labour officers and medical officers are empowered to see that that is done.

SALE OF CATTLE.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the cattle belonging to the Wakamba people, Kenya, are still being compulsorily sold, how many have been sold, what is the estimated number to be sold, what price per head is being paid, and what is the price per head in a normal market?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government of Kenya consider that it will be necessary to reduce the number of cattle in this Reserve by one-third in order to combat the menace of soil erosion. This will involve the sale in due course of 100,000 head. According to my latest information, some


3,000 cattle have, so far, been sold at public auctions, at average prices ranging from 21s. to 25s. a head. I understand that the beasts brought in by the Wakamba for sale were of very poor quality, and that at present the local market prices are abnormally high.

Mr. Paling: Are these to be sold to-day or in the very near future? Does not the question of soil erosion arise largely from the fact that these people have been driven off their lands and crowded into less and less reserves, whereas other land has been maintained in utter disuse for European settlers; and is that not likely to lead to the kind of trouble we have had in Jamaica?

Mr. MacDonald: Provision is being made for added reserves for these people. Soil erosion arises largely from the fact that the land has been overstocked, and it is necessary that the numbers of cattle should be reduced.

Mr. Paling: Does not the overstocking result from the fact that the amount of land that they have now is less than they used to have; and if they had the amount of land that they really ought to have—and, after all, they are the people belonging to the country—would the question of soil erosion be as acute as it is at the present time?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Does not the overstocking arise from the fact that now they live in peace, whereas hitherto their cattle were constantly being raided by neighbouring tribes?

Mr. Paling: How long ago is that?

IMPERIAL DEFENCE (COLONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. McGhee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before any grant is accepted from a Colonial Government for the purposes of Imperial Defence, steps will be taken to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants; and whether consideration will be given to the internal needs and financial position of the Colony concerned?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Any such contribution from a Colonial Government would have to be voted by the Legislative Council wherever such a Council existed, and the Council would naturally take into account the internal needs of the Colony

and its financial position when considering the matter. If, in any particular case, I felt doubtful whether a Colonial Government could afford to make the contribution offered, I should consult further with the Governor.

WEST INDIES (ECONOMIC SURVEY).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any details regarding the personnel and the terms of reference of the economic survey planned to take place in the Windward and Leeward Islands; and whether it has commenced operations?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The survey will be conducted by Professor Shephard, of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinadad, and he will be assisted by two officers. It will cover the systems of land tenure and types of agriculture among the peasant smallholders, and will be commenced as soon as possible after 1st October.

Mr. Riley: Will the Commission, in the course of these inquiries, be able to see the system in operation in the French colonies of Martinique and Guadeloupe?

Mr. MacDonald: I am certain that, if the Commission require any information on these matters which they cannot get in any other way, they will look into that practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

EMIR ABDULLAH'S PROPOSALS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government is examining the plan put forward by the Emir Abdullah to reconcile Jewish and Arab interests in a united kingdom of Palestine and Transjordan; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) on 21st June, of which I am sending him a copy.

TERRORISM.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information regarding the kidnapping


of three Jewish youths from a field at Givath Ada, near Nichron Jacob, by armed Arab terrorists; whether he is aware that the ages of these youths are 13, 18, and 19 years, respectively; and whether he will consider allowing the Jewish workers, especially in border areas, to arm themselves for the purpose of defending their lives and those under their charge?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have no detailed information regarding this case, but I am asking the High Commissioner for a report. As regards the last part of the question, there are over 1,000 Jews already armed as supernumerary police for protection of Jewish settlements and crops. I am asking the High Commissioner whether he considers that the number of these supernumerary police should be increased.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that the very best defence for the Jews would be to give justice to the Arabs?

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reason for the arrest of Shlomo Ben Joseph, of Rosh Pinah, Palestine, and his two companions; whether any person was killed or injured by their action; the age of Ben Joseph; whether any distinction is made between those who are guilty of murder or attempted murder and individuals who are defending themselves by force of arms; whether these incidents are brought about by the inability of the police and Army in Palestine to defend the Jewish community against murderous attacks; the reason for the refusal to postpone the death sentence in order that the mother of Shlomo Ben Joseph might journey from Poland to Palestine in order to bid farewell to her son; the amount of rioting which took place as a result of the hanging of this boy; and how many were injured and arrested, respectively?

Mr. MacDonald: I apologise for the inevitable length of the reply. The charge was one of shooting at a bus and being found in possession of arms and bombs. There were no deaths; I am not aware whether there were any persons injured. The age of Shlomo Ben Joseph was 23. With regard to the fourth part

of the question, the relevant regulation allows the court a certain discretion in the assessment of penalties, and without doubt a distinction would be made in the case envisaged by the hon. Member. I cannot accept the suggestion in the fifth part of the question. I have no information regarding the request to postpone the death sentence. As regards the seventh and eighth parts of the question, there were Jewish demonstrations before or after the execution in four centres, which resulted in 13 known cases of injury and 34 arrests. It is possible that some of the acts of violence of the last two days have been due in part to feelings aroused by this execution. The Jews in Palestine have shown admirable restraint throughout these difficult times, and the vast majority of them continue to show that restraint under the influence of their leaders. It is regrettable that in some cases it should have broken down, thus increasing the difficulties of the situation with which the authorities are contending.

Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this further, and find out whether it is the case that the mother of this boy made representations to be allowed to see him before he was executed and the High Commissioner turned down her application? Does he not think it perfectly outrageous that the boy should be murdered when no death and no injuries occurred, and that the mother should not be allowed to see him?

Colonel Wedgwood: In connection with the answer to the fifth part of the question, "whether these incidents are brought about by the inability of the police and army in Palestine to defend the Jewish community against murderous attacks," ought not that to be taken into consideration?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no doubt that a great many things were taken into consideration. With regard to the other question that I was asked, I will ask for information. In the absence of information, I could not possibly make any comment on the matter; and certainly I could not be associated with the comment the hon. Member has made on it.

Mr. McGovern: I do not expect you to; but it is a damnable thing.

BRITISH SOMALILAND (DEFENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the consultations referred to by the then Secretary of State in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on 29th April, 1936, as being in progress between the Governor of British Somaliland and the Colonial Office in regard to the amendment of the situation subsisting under the Somaliland Order in Council, 1929, and the administration thereof by the local authorities, whereby accused persons were not permitted to be defended by a lawyer in any court in the Somaliland Protectorate, resulted in any amendment in the practice in the courts in the Somaliland Protectorate; and whether he will consider allowing a fresh trial to Abdi Farah, Ali Abdi, Isman Ali and Saliban Ahmed, who were sentenced to death in February, 1936, which sentence was subsequently commuted to imprisonment for 20 years, and who were refused permission to be represented by lawyers at their trial, and allowing them to be represented by lawyers at this fresh trial?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 25th May to a question by the hon. Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon).

Mr. McGovern: Is there any intention of granting a fresh trial to these men, in order to give them the opportunity of being represented in a proper way?

Mr. MacDonald: As I said in the answer to which I have referred the hon. Member, and of which I am sending him a copy, I have no power to order such a new trial.

Mr. McGovern: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman recommend that consideration should be given to it, seeing that these people feel that great injustice has been done owing to the fact that they were not properly represented at a proper trial? Can the right hon. Gentleman make representations on the matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I have really covered that point in the answer I have already given.

Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: Is he

prepared to make representations, if he has not already done so?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no power to interfere in the matter.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is any inquiry proceeding at the present moment into the legal procedure in Somaliland?

Mr. MacDonald: That inquiry has been completed, and certain recommendations for improving the position have been made. The answer to which I referred in my original answer sets out the new recommendations, which are being acted upon.

COLONIAL MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what have been the principal activities of the reconstituted Colonial Marketing Board up to date; and whether steps will be taken by that board to encourage manufacturers in this country to investigate the possibility of using a greater proportion of raw materials obtained within the Empire or of financing and developing their own supplies of raw materials within the Colonial Empire?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The board's office was only opened on 1st March this year, since when it has been principally occupied with questions of organisation. It has completed arrangements for assuming responsibility for co-ordinating publicity on behalf of the Colonial Empire in this country and elsewhere. The board's officers have also begun investigating the possibilities of expanding the market for certain Colonial products in this country. As regards the last part of the question, the board will certainly do its utmost to promote co-operation between manufacturers in this country and producers in the Colonial Empire.

WEST INDIES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the proposed Royal Commission on the West Indies, whether he can yet state the personnel of the Commission and also the terms of reference; and whether, in particular, constitutional and franchise questions will be included?

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to indicate the composition of the Royal Commission which is to investigate the economic and other conditions in the West Indian colonies?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Lunn: If I put down a question a fortnight to-day, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer it? I think he ought to answer it before we rise for the Recess. And may I ask whether, when drafting the terms of reference, he will consider the last part of my question?

Mr. MacDonald: I will certainly consider that matter. I agree it is important that this announcement should be made as early as possible, but I could not undertake to be able to give a definite answer in a fortnight's time.

Mr. Lunn: I will put a question down.

JAMAICA.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the last general election to the Legislative Council of Jamaica was held, the number comprising the Legislative Council, the number of elected and nominated members, respectively, and the number who are white and coloured, respectively?

Mr. M. MacDonald: ?: The last general election was held in 1935. The Legislative Council consists of the Governor as President and a maximum of 29 members, of whom five are ex-officio members, 14 are elected and so nominated. I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question.

Mr. Riley: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the time has come when there should be an extension of the franchise upon a much wider basis; and is he aware that in the neighbouring islands of the West Indies manhood suffrage is available for black and white?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that is the subject of another question which the hon. Member has down for answer a little later; but I cannot agree.

Mr. Dalton: Has not the right hon. Gentleman in his office the particulars

asked for in the last part of the question? Surely he has them?

Mr. MacDonald: If I had the particulars in the office I would have given them. It is because I have not got them that I gave the answer I did.

Mr. Dalton: Is not this a serious reflection on the efficiency of the Colonial Office?

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Sir John Haslam: Is it right Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman to carry on a private conversation across the Table?

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present approximate population of Jamaica, giving the numbers of white and coloured, respectively; and the franchise qualification for voting for members to the legislative council and the number of registered electors, white and coloured, respectively?

Mr. MacDonald: The population of Jamaica was estimated in 1936 to be 1,138,558. No estimate was then made of the proportion of white to coloured population. The franchise qualifications involve considerable detail, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The number of registered electors is 62,867, but I have no information as to what proportion of this total is coloured.

Mr. Riley: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the proportion of registered electors to the population works out at one in 20, as against one in two in this country?

Colonel Wedgwood: Could the Royal Commission which is going out to the West Indies consider at the same time how the same problems are met in Martinique, where the franchise is very much wider?

Following are the franchise qualifications:

Any man who has reached the age of 21, and any woman who has reached the age of 25 and is literate, is qualified to vote in Jamaica providing he or she:

1. Is under no legal incapacity.
2. Is a British subject by birth or naturalisation.


3. Either

(a) is in a parish constituting an electoral district on 31st of January in the year of registration, and has since 1st April preceding occupied as owner or tenant a dwelling-house or possessed real property in the parish rateable under the parish general rate; and has during that period paid taxes amounting to not less than 10s. in the case of men and in the case of women;
(b) possesses personal property in respect of which not less than 10s. in the case of men and £2 in the case of women has been paid in taxes and resides within the division of the parish in which registration is claimed; 
(c) receives salary or wages total-ling not less than £50;
(d) pays a rent of not less than £10 for a dwelling-house or tenement in which his or her business is carried on and receives an income of not less than £50 a year.

Persons are disqualified from being electors by:

(1) Sentence to death, penal servitude, or imprisonment with hard labour or for a term exceeding 12 months (such sentence not having expired or been modified).
(2) Receipt of parochial relief.
(3) Failing to sign and date his or her registration claim in own handwriting.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the percentage of literacy in the coloured population of Jamaica, the number of coloured children of school age, and the number of such children attending public and private schools?

Mr. MacDonald: In the absence of any up-to-date population statistics issued by the Jamaican Government, I regret that I am not in a position to answer these questions.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD (STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has

been drawn to the Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board in which they state the difficulty of meeting their statutory obligation to provide for the needs of applicants and their families and at the same time maintain a reasonable relationship between allowances and wages; and whether he will appoint a Royal Commission or other appropriate body to investigate the relationship of unemployment benefit, unemployment allowances, wage rates, and family allowances?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 29th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby).

Mr. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the reply to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) refers solely to the question of family allowances, which is a narrow point; and will he not, in view of the anxiety expressed by the Unemployment Assistance Board and the Statutory Committee with regard to the problem, take some further steps towards a solution of the difficulty?

The Prime Minister: I think that really the answer applies, although perhaps the scope of this question is rather wider than the one that was asked before.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is aware that, by the adoption and strict enforcement of a number of preventive measures, the incidence of silicosis in the Rand mines in South Africa has been reduced by 90 per cent.; and whether he will consider the desirability of arranging for those now engaged in investigating the problem of silicosis in the anthracite mines of South Wales to visit the Rand mines with a view to reporting upon the practicability of adopting those methods of prevention in the coal mines of this country?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. Full information as to the measures taken


in South Africa is available in this country, and it is known that these have had substantial success under the rather different conditions prevailing there. It is, therefore, not considered desirable to arrange for a visit to the Rand by the investigators at present working for the Medical Research Council in South Wales, especially in view of the importance of avoiding any interruption of their present researches.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

OIL TANKERS, RIVER THAMES.

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the proposal to amend the Port of London by-laws concerning the limits within which oil-tankers may enter the Thames has been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence and by its appropriate sub-committee; and whether the representations on the subject, made by the Institution of Fire Engineers, have been specifically considered by the committee and its appropriate sub-committee?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir T. Inskip): As regards the first part of the question, the proposal to amend the Port of London Authority's by-laws has been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence and by the Government; as regards the second part, the representations made to the Minister of Transport by the Institution of Fire Engineers were specifically considered by the Government.

AIRCRAFT AND OTHER MUNITIONS (MANUFACTURE, CANADA).

Sir H. Croft: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can now state what arrangements His Majesty's Government have been able to make for the manufacture in Canada of aircraft and other munitions, either with Canadian manufacturers direct or in cooperation with His Majesty's Government in Canada?

Sir T. lnskip: As regards the production of aircraft in Canada, the Government has under examination the report of the recent Special Mission which was sent to the United States of America and Canada, and made inquiries into this matter. As regards the manufacture of other munitions, orders have been placed

in Canada for shell bodies and Bren machine guns, the former direct with the Canadian manufacturer and the latter in association with the Canadian Government. An order for explosives is also under consideration.

Sir H. Croft: Are His Majesty's Government making it clear to all the Dominions that this country is ready to engage in the widest co-operation for collective defence against any form of aggression from the air?

Sir T. Inskip: The Government of the United Kingdom are in constant communication with the Dominions.

Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say whether it is not quite untrue to say that any request by His Majesty's Government here has been refused by the Canadian Government?

Sir T. lnskip: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Bellenger: Are the types of munitions for which orders have been placed in Canada similar to the types which are to be supplied to the Turkish Government under the Bill now before the House?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will any portions of the report of the Special Commission be made available to Members of this House?

Sir T. Inskip: That is a question which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

CAIRD SHIPYARD, GREENOCK.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now considered the disused Caird shipyard at Greenock, with the waters adjacent thereto, as a suitable base for an air service between Greenock and the Western Isles, similar to that between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Greenock Harbour was licensed last year as a civil sea aerodrome but no proposals have yet been received from any local authority or other responsible concern regarding the development of the disused Caird shipyard


for aviation purposes. As the hon. and learned Member was recently informed, the Air Ministry would be happy to arrange for an inspection of the shipyard in the event of any such proposals being put forward.

DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to the development of civil aviation?

Captain Balfour: The policy in regard to the development of civil aviation is to implement the recommendations of the Maybury Committee and such recommendations of the Cadman Committee as were approved by the Government, many of which have already been carried out. The Government do not, however, regard future developments as limited by those recommendations and, as announced by my right hon. Friend in the House on 18th May, some £100,000 of the increased subsidy will be made available for inland services. Further, the possibilities of making more extensive use of suitable civil aerodromes for Royal Air Force purposes are being actively examined. Consideration is being given to the question whether further assistance can be granted to light aeroplane and gliding clubs. New types of civil aircraft are being encouraged by grants to facilitate development and early production. The proposals of the Cadman Committee in regard to external services are in process of implementation.

Mr. Montague: What is the position at the present moment of the Junction Scheme in the report?

Captain Balfour: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would put down a specific question on that.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the directors of Imperial Airways invited Sir John Reith to conduct an investigation into what they termed charges made by the Cadman Report, and can he say how much of the time of the new managing-director is to be diverted to these matters?

Captain Balfour: That does not come within the scope of the question, which was for a statement of Government policy regarding civil aviation.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is his intention to develop the air-mail services in this country and to develop the facilities for carrying by aircraft of parcels and freightage; and is it proposed to link up the provincial services with other parts of the world?

Captain Balfour: I understand that the policy of the Post Office as regards Internal Air Mail Services is to make use of any regular and reliable established air service for the conveyance of full rate letters and postcards without surcharge, provided that delivery is thereby accelerated and the cost is reasonable. As regards the carriage by aircraft of parcels, other than postal parcels, and of freightage the proposals already announced for the grant of a subsidy to air lines in this country together with the benefits of the system of licensing that is to be set up should enable the regular air services to develop their business in this direction as well as in regard to the carriage of passengers. The last part of the question is a matter primarily for arrangement between the companies concerned but my Department is always willing to assist with information or technical advice.

Mr. Smith: Do consultations take place between the Air Ministry and the Post Office authorities in regard to this matter, and, if not, will the Under-Secretary consider the need for such consultations?

Captain Balfour: I can assure my hon. Friend that consultations are constantly taking place between the Post Office and my Department.

MUNICIPAL AERODROMES.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement on the Government policy in reference to the municipal aerodromes for the guidance of the municipalities; and whether he will issue a list of those aerodromes which are considered adequate for future requirements?

Captain Balfour: As has already been stated in the House, the decision of His Majesty's Government following the recommendations of the Maybury and Cadman Committees is that direct financial assistance for the construction, enlargement or maintenance of civil aerodromes should not be granted. Assistance


is afforded by the provision, maintenance and operation of radio facilities, a meteorological organisation and a comprehensive air traffic control organisation and by a contribution towards the capital costs of night lighting equipment at selected aerodromes. It is the policy of the Government to make, in agreement with the owners, use of civil aerodromes for suitable defence purposes and the present arrangements at both municipal and other aerodromes are being actively reviewed at present in this connection. My Department is always willing to give technical advice to municipalities regarding the acquisition or reservation of aerodrome sites and has issued a memorandum on the provision of aerodromes by local authorities and a pamphlet on the principles governing the planning and zoning of aerodromes, suitable for the operation of regular day and night services, copies of which I am sending to the hon. Member. The information asked for in the last part of the question will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the Under-Secretary say how many of these aerodromes are paying propositions at the present time?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir.

Following is the List:

AERODROMES the dimensions of which meet standard requirements or are in process of development up to these dimensions.


Belfast.
Liverpool (Speke).


Birmingham.
Luton.


Cambridge.
Manchester (Ringway).


Coventry



Croydon
Perth.


Derby.
Southampton.


Doncaster.
Yeadon.


Heston.

A number of proposals have also been submitted for development to standard dimensions.

RAE COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to receive the report of the Rae Committee?

Captain Balfour: I am not yet in a position to say when the report of the Rae Committee may be expected.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that this committee is taking a very considerable time to inquire into the directorate of this organisation, and does that not indicate that the working of that directorate has fallen into a state of considerable confusion?

Captain Balfour: The fact that it is taking a considerable time is an indication that the committee are investigating the matter thoroughly. The committee has met frequently, but it will take some time before it is in a position to report. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that no time is being lost.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May we expect a report before the House rises?

Captain Balfour: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to give him a reply.

AIRPORTS (RADIO-ELECTRIC SERVICES).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of airports that are at present equipped with radio-electric services; the number that are at present being considered; and when a definite decision will be arrived at?

Captain Balfour: There are at present 22 civil aerodromes and airports equipped with radio-electric services and their provision at three others is under active consideration. In addition, following the recommendations of the Maybury Committee it is proposed to make these services available at a number of additional stations in accordance with traffic and operational requirements.

Mr. Day: Is there any reason for holding up the development of these flying areas with this equipment?

Captain Balfour: The development is limited to some extent by the ability to obtain equipment and other considerations, but we are getting on as fast as we can.

EXPERIMENTAL TRANSATLANTIC FLIGHTS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air what flights will be made this year by British aircraft across the Atlantic?

Captain Balfour: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 22nd June last it is hoped to carry out experimental trans-Atlantic flights in


both directions with the Mayo composite aircraft, with flying boats and with land-planes during the course of the year. The extent and details of the programme are under active consideration with Imperial Airways.

Mr. Simmonds: Can the Under-Secretary say, provided these experimental flights are satisfactory, when it is intended that a permanent service shall be inaugurated?

Captain Balfour: That is a hypothetical question depending upon the degree of success of the experimental services.

Mr. Mender: Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that he will not allow any other country to get in front of this country?

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the shadow factories now being erected are being built with bomb-proof shelters and gas-proof chambers; and whether any arrangements have been made for the special protection of the inhabitants residing in the areas?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is that the necessity for adequate air-raid precaution arrangements is fully in mind; it would, however, be contrary to the public interest to disclose the precise arrangements which will be made. With regard to the second part, the question of the protection of the inhabitants residing in these areas is a matter for consideration in connection with district air-raid precaution schemes under the control of the local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FACTORIES AND AERODROMES, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to establish an aero-engine factory in Lancashire further than any already arranged because of the labour available; and whether any other parts, such as airframes, will be constructed in that county for similar reasons in the present expansion of the Royal Air Force?

Sir K. Wood: There is no present intention of establishing an aero-engine factory in Lancashire. With regard to the second part of the question, airframes are being produced by two factories in the county, enlargements to both of which have lately been approved, as well as by a third which is just over the Cheshire border. A considerable amount of work on the production of ancillary material is also being undertaken in Lancashire and, as I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 29th of last month, still further assistance is likely to be required from the industrial resources of that area.

Mr. Chorlton: In view of Lancashire having such a surplus of engineering labour, would it not be a good thing to establish aero-engine factories there instead of in the Birmingham district, where a great deal of work is being done, whereas in Lancashire our workers have nothing to do?

Colonel Wedgwood: What about Staffordshire, too?

Mr. George Griffiths: I would like to know whether it is not time that we had a couple of these factories in Yorkshire.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what other aerodromes than Speke, Liverpool, and the one belonging to Manchester, are located in Lancashire; and what steps are being taken to increase the number in view of the protection afforded by the Pennine Chain and the industrial means of the district?

Sir K. Wood: No other aerodromes used for Service purposes are located in Lancashire. The suitability of sites for these purposes depends on a variety of factors and the considerable investigations so far carried out by my Department have not disclosed any other sites which would be likely to meet Service requirements. If my hon. Friend has any particular areas in mind, I should be glad to consider them.

ENLISTMENT (APPLICATIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of men who offered themselves for enlistment in the Royal Air Force and completed Form 429 during the six months ended at the last convenient date?

Sir K. Wood: During the six months ended 2nd July, 1938, 19,140 men applied for enlistment and completed Form 429.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how many of these men were accepted after final examination?

BALLOON BARRAGE.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now make a statement with regard to the extension of the balloon-barrage system of defence to areas other than London?

Sir K. Wood: I am not at present able to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 22nd June last.

Mr. Davidson: Is the reason that the balloon-barrage system is restricted to one particular area due to lack of materials or equipment?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I stated on the last occasion that it was not possible to arrive at any decision until we had had further experience of the balloon barrage in the London area.

Mr. Dalton: Is it intended that the vast industrial populations in the North-East shall not have these essential means of defence?

Sir K. Wood: That is not so, but I think it is wise to see what the experience of the London barrage is.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the local authorities in the North of England and Scotland are being asked to carry out their air-raid precautions scheme in conjunction with the rest of the country?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the balloon barrage be of any use in a gale?

DEFENCE, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in the plans for the air defence of Scotland, dependence is placed on the mobility of fighter squadrons stationed in England?

Sir K. Wood: I indicated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 29th June that the air defence of Scotland is treated as an integral part of the general problem of the air defence of the United Kingdom, and that our plans envisage

the mobility of squadrons. It is proposed that one of the squadrons at present located in Scotland should be converted to fighter duties during the course of the present year.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that one fighter squadron is sufficient for the defence of Scotland? Further, may I ask whether the strength of these mobile squadrons in England for the defence of Scotland depends on the constructional rate of progress in Canada?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The hon. Member must look upon the defence of Scotland as an integral part of the defence of the United Kingdom.

TECHNICAL, PROFESSIONAL AND INDUS TRIAL POSTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. Montague: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether in his Department the policy of extending the age limit to ex-service candidates for technical or other posts or any general preference to ex-service men is still applied?

Sir K. Wood: In recruiting for technical, professional and industrial posts, it is the policy of the Air Ministry to give the preference to ex-service men, and, for some posts, consideration is confined to ex-service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CARRIAGE OF FISH, ULLAPOOL.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the fishermen in Ullapool suffer a serious disadvantage in that, unless their fish can be sold in time to catch either of the two daily trains for Aberdeen, it is left over until the next day; that this disadvantage would be removed if the limit of distance allowed to motor contractors to carry fish could be extended from Garve to Aberdeen; and whether any action can be taken in the matter?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): The grant of licences to road carriers, and the conditions attached to those licenses, are matters for the licensing authority, and under the Statute are not within my jurisdiction.

Mr. Macquisten: Then it does not matter what happens to the fish, as long as the railways are protected?

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of asking the railway companies either to withdraw their objection to the grant of these licences when applications are made, or to run fish trains between these fishing towns?

Mr. Burgin: As I have pointed out, the matter is not within my jurisdiction. The licensing authorities consider these applications, and there is an appeal from the refusal to grant a licence by the licensing authorities.

Mr. Garro Jones: While it is not within the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman, he frequently makes representations, and I am asking him whether he will consider doing so in this case?

RAILWAY EXCURSIONS.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take up with the companies concerned the necessity for some improvement, in the future, in excursion services, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of many of these services, as instanced by the fact that a London Midland and Scottish Railway excursion left Leeds for Blackpool on Saturday last at 7 a.m. and did not reach its destination, a distance of about 70 miles, until 11.55 a.m., and that it left Blackpool on the return journey at 9.15 p.m. and did not arrive in Leeds until 2.50 a.m., that there were no corridor coaches on the train; and that there has been no alteration in these conditions for excursionists for many years?

Mr. Burgin: I have no jurisdiction in this matter. I am, however, in communication with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company about the excursion to which the hon. Member refers and will let him know the result.

Mr. Lunn: In view of the fact that there has been much publicity about development in speed and comfort on the main lines, is it not time that something was done with the cross-country services, which have not improved in either speed or comfort for the last 50 years?

Mr. Burgin: I am not quarrelling with the lion. Member's general conclusion, but his question relates to a specific excursion, and on that I wish to make inquiries.

SHIP CANAL, GOOLE AND SHEFFIELD.

Mr. Dunn: asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has given consideration to the question of the construction of a ship canal between Goole and Sheffield, and what was the result of such considerations; and whether he will now appoint a committee to consider this question?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. The initiation of any such scheme would be a matter primarily for the authorities concerned.

ROAD WIDENING, NEWBY BRIDGE. WINDERMERE.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed destruction of trees as part of a road-widening scheme at Newby Bridge, Windermere; whether his approval has been given; and whether it is too late to have the matter reconsidered?

Mr. Burgin: When the scheme was under discussion in connection with the grant from the Road Fund the Lancashire County Council stated that it was their intention to retain the trees wherever practicable. The council, whose attention has been called to the hon. Member's question, have assured me that they will do all they can to preserve as many trees as possible.

Mr. Leach: Does not the Minister agree that these miscalled improvements are going to destroy some parts of this land?

ROAD ACCIDENTS (TRAMCARS AND TROLLEY-VEHICLES, LONDON).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents in the Metropolitan Police area per passenger mile, or vehicle mile, for tramcars and trolley-vehicles, severally, for the last convenient period?

Mr. Burgin: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The vehicle miles run by the tramcars and trolley-vehicles of the London Passenger Transport Board, which are operated almost entirely within the


Metropolitan Police district, were during the year ended 30th June, 1937:


Tramcars
88,642,981


Trolley Vehicles
19,582,977

The casualties sustained in street accidents recorded by the Metropolitan Police for the same period include the following:

Pedestrians killed or injured by tramcars or trolley vehicles whether the accident was attributed to the vehicle or not—



Killed.
Injured.


Tramcars
26
524


Trolley Vehicles
6
138

Other road users killed or injured by accidents attributed to tramcars or trolley vehicles—



Killed.
Injured.


Tramcars
5
757


Trolley Vehicles
3
168

GREAT CAMBRIDGE ARTERIAL ROAD.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the great and growing volume of traffic on the highway to the north of the Metropolis, known as the Great Cambridge Arterial Road; that there is abundant margin available for the widening of the roadway which is at present narrow; and whether he will forthwith have the matter put in hand?

Mr. Burgin: I have already made a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost, estimated at £61,44o, of duplicating the carriageway and constructing cycle tracks between Lordship Lane and North Circular Road, and this work is nearly completed. I have also approved in principle similar proposals for the remainder of the road in Middlesex, and the county council hope to begin work on a further section in the present financial year.

EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport how many fatal and other accidents occurred on the unlighted portion of the East Lancashire road during the 12 months ended 3oth June last and the previous 12 months, respectively; how many such accidents, fatal and otherwise, occurred at the Windle roundabout, near St. Helens; and what steps he is taking to make this road safer for motorists and pedestrians?

Mr. Burgin: I am making inquiries about the figures asked for in the first two parts of the question and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course. As regards the last part of the question, cycle tracks are now being laid down for a length of two miles; a subway is to be constructed opposite Moorside Council School, Swinton; traffic control signals are about to be erected at Worsley Road crossing, Swinton; and all other junctions are being surveyed with a view to the preparation of schemes for improvement.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that at the road referred to, where a fatal accident occurred last Sunday night, seven roads converge on an island which is lighted by only three lights? Will the Minister consider defining the seven roads by a system of rotatory white and red lights?

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member has asked me if I will consider the statement he has made. I will.

Viscountess Astor: Has the Minister considered the number of public houses in this area during the last two years?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS).

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Minister of Transport what arrangements are being made for the testing of existing meters under the Electricity Supply Meters Act; and whether he can give any indication of how long it will take to carry out the necessary testing operations?

Mr. Burgin: Under the Electricity Supply (Meters) Act, 1936, existing meters used by ordinary consumers must be brought in within a maximum period of 10 years from the appointed day, which is 1st July, 1938, and must be tested and certified if re-issued. In the meantime a consumer can apply for the designation of a meter examiner to determine any difference as to the accuracy of his meter.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ANNUAL REPORT).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health when his report for 1937 will be available for Members; and will he arrange for a report, in future, to be published earlier than July?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend anticipates that it will be possible to publish the report, which relates to the financial year ended 31st March, 1938, in about four weeks' time. With regard to the second part of the question, it has to be borne in mind that the report is based to a large extent on statistical information which has to be obtained from local authorities and analysed in the Department.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this report will come out while Parliament is in Recess, and that we shall not be able to discuss it until December? We want to discuss it before the Recess.

Mr. Bernays: I have pointed out that there are certain difficulties in the way, and my right hon. Friend is looking into the matter, but I cannot give any undertaking.

Mr. Griffiths: Will it be speeded up so that we can have the report before the Recess?

VITAMINISED MARGARINE.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health whether any official tests have been made by, or any reports submitted to, his Department upon the relative merits of vitaminised margarine as a dietetic alternative to butter; and whether he can make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Bernays: No official tests have been carried out, but references to this matter are contained in the report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which I will send to the hon. Member. These would indicate that margarine can be made the equivalent of butter as regard vitamin content.

Mr. Leach: If that be true, why are the fighting forces abandoning margarine for butter?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MONTHLY RETURNS.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether essential commodities bought by the Government or by private individuals and companies on behalf of the Government are included in the monthly trade returns when imported into this country?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Imports of the kind mentioned in the question are included in the trade returns, except when carried on Government vessels. The treatment of Government stores in the trade returns is set out in Introductory Note (1) to the monthly Accounts relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Williams: Can the Minister say why it is that we have imported less wheat this year than last in regard to Government purchases?

Mr. Hudson: Government purchases of wheat are included in the return.

Mr. Williams: Can the Minister say why all the other people concerned have imported less?

Mr. Hudson: Not without notice.

AUSTRALIA.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make with regard to the progress of the negotiations for the revision of the Ottawa Trade Agreement with Australia?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Discussions with the Commonwealth Ministers now in London have been proceeding for some weeks, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement in regard to them.

Mr. Williams: May I ask whether these negotiations are being hampered in any way because of our commitments to the United States of America?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

IMPORTED SLATES (MARKING).

Sir Haydn Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that roofing and damp-course slates of an inferior quality are being imported with only one slate per mille marked with the name of the country of origin, and are sold as best quality Yorkshire malharia slates, at prices below the cost at which slates can be produced in this country; and what steps he is pre pared to take to deal with the situation.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. I Order, 1930, requires imported roofing slates to be marked on sale but not on importation. If the hon. Member will communicate


to me any evidence that he may have of non-compliance with the provisions of the Order or of application of a false trade description, I shall be glad to consider it. Any application for an increased duty on imported slates, should, of course, be addressed to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 132.

Division No. 271.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Davidson, Viscountess
Kimball, L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G
De la Bère, R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Denville, Alfred
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Doland, G. f.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Donner, P. W.
Levy, T.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lewis, O.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Drewe, C.
Lindsay, K. M.


Apsley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lipson, D. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Assheton, R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Lyons, A. M.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eastwood, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Eckersley P. T.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Elliot Rt Hon. W. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie., J. H


Beechman, N. A.
Errington, E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macquisten, F. A.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Everard, W. L.
Magnay, T.


Blair, Sir R.
Fildes, Sir H.
Maitland, A.


Bossom, A. C.
Findlay, Sir E.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernes


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fyfe D. P. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Marsden, Commander A.


Brass, Sir W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G C.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Goldie, N. B.
Mayhew, Lt-Col. J.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Burten, Col. H. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Moreing, A. C.


Butler, R. A.
Grimston. R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hambro, A. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cary, R. A.
Harbord, A.
Munro, P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Nall, Sir J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Channon, H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hepworth, J.
Palmer. G. E. H.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert. Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Patrick, C. M.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Higgs, W. F.
Peake, O.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Holdsworth. H.
Petherick, M.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Holmes. J. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hopkinson, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Porritt, R. W.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hunter, T.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Critchley, A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Keeling, E. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rowlands, G.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Russell, Sir Alexander




Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Salmon, Sir I.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Salt, E. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Sandys, E. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Selley, H. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shakespeare, G. H.
Tate, Mavis C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wise, A. R.


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Simmonds, O. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wragg, H.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Turton, R. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan



Smithers, Sir W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Captain Hope and Mr. Furness.


Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Warrender, Sir V.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Adamson, W. M.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Poole, C. C.


Barnes, A. J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hardie, Agnes
Riley, B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brem.)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Hicks, E. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cape, T.
Hollins, A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cassells, T.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Stephen, C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
John, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stokes, R. R.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leach, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Lee, F.
Walker, J.


Dubbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
McGovern, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Carro Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to record a vote in this Division in the "No" Lobby, but the attendant locked the door of the Lobby on this side first, and allowed ten Members from the other side to go into the "Aye" Lobby. I resent the fact that the attendant closed the "No" Lobby first and allowed ten Members to go into the "Aye" Lobby after I had been prevented from recording

my vote. The attendant is now laughing behind your back. Should there not be two attendants, one at each door?

Mr. Speaker: There is only one attendant who locks both doors, and it takes him a second or so to go from one door to the other.

Mr. Robinson: Why should he lock my door first?

RESTORATION OF MILLS IN RURAL AREAS.

Mr. De la Bère: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the improvement of mills in rural areas and for the increase in the output thereof and to amend the Wheat Act, 1932.
This Bill is a very simple and short proposition. It merely proposes slight modifications of the machinery already in existence under the Wheat Act, 1932. It proposes that henceforward the Minister of Agriculture should have power to lay down that a certain proportion of homegrown millable wheat should, in every cereal year, be milled in what I define as "rural mills." The Bill then lays down that it would be for the Wheat Commission and the Millers' Corporation, which are already in existence under that Act, to work out a scheme whereby the prescribed proportion of wheat would be assured and distributed to the rural mills. I suggest that there is a procedure which can be worked out without any great difficulty, and one that can be brought into operation gradually and with due consideration for all the interests concerned. It need not involve the Government in any additional expenditure.
The House will appreciate that for many years now there has been a diminution in the number of mills in rural areas working to produce flour from wheat. The reasons for that diminution are many and various. Much de-offalised wheat is now imported into this country, having been milled abroad, and much wheat which is imported is treated by mills at the various ports of importation. Much of the home-grown wheat is also sent to the mills at the ports to enable it to be de-offalised there, and no employment is given in the rural areas. Apart from that, there is much de-offalised wheat introduced which is of no value from the point of view of offals for the producers and the agriculturists in this country.
While I am on that subject I would like to call attention to the plight of the poultry keepers, who have suffered as a result of the high price of offals because of the importation of this de-offalised wheat. Many thousands of these poultry keepers have been compelled to close down and their plight is indeed parlous. I do not want to state an exact date, but I think it was in June, 1937, that

a scheme was put forward by the milling combine offering to pay 2s. a cwt. on offals into a central fund, or 4os. a ton. All seemed to be well and the combine seemed to be really doing something which was great. Unfortunately before we could get the scheme into operation it transpired that the combine wanted a quid pro quo in exchange; they wanted, I am informed, to raise the price of wheat and bread to the people of this country. In view of the fact that so many of the mills to-day are owned by the milling combines, who have bought them and have no intention of re-opening them, I feel that something should be done to assist and increase the number of mills in order to provide offals for the poultry keepers and the farmers of the country. It may be that nothing I can say or do in this House will make the Government realise the importance of the poultry keepers and the farmers, but I believe in the Faithful Commons; I believe they have a heart; and it is for that reason that I ask leave to bring in this Bill.
Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the improvement of mills in rural areas and for the increase in the output thereof and to amend the Wheat Act, 1932,
put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. De la Bère, Mr. Liddall, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. H. G. Williams, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. Haslam, and Mr. Macquisten.

RESTORATION OF MILLS IN RURAL AREAS BILL,

Mr. De la Bère: "to provide for the improvement of mills in rural areas and for the increase in the output thereof and to amend the Wheat Act, 1932,"presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Inheritance (Family Provision) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords],

Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power (Consolidation) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

4.5 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
It might be for the convenience of the House if I took this opportunity of saying one or two words, not upon the merits of the Amendments but on the general question of the Amendments as a whole. First of all, I ask the House not to be alarmed by what appears to be a formidable volume of Amendments. I think we have communicated with the Opposition parties, and they, no doubt, have given attention to the matter, and will agree with me when I say that the vast majority of these Amendments are either pure drafting Amendments or, if not drafting Amendments, are alterations in machinery and not in substance. I make no apology for having to bring before the House such a large number of Amendments of this character. With only two exceptions they relate to Part I of the Bill, the unification of royalties, which all hon. Members will admit does entail most intricate machinery and deals with a branch of the law which I believe is obscure even to lawyers who have not practised in that particular sphere; and as we hope and believe that we are legislating in this part of the Bill, not for some temporary purpose but are laying down a permanent code, it is obviously right that we should miss no opportunity of improving, even if the improvement is only a verbal one, the machinery that we are laying down. I think it will be found that in fact the points of substance are comparatively few in number, perhaps not more than a dozen all told.
In addition, it would be of use to the House if I indicated at this stage, again of course without in any way referring to the merits of particular Amendments, the attitude which the Government have adopted to certain of these Amendments and the advice which will be tendered to the House on them. I regret to say, strange as it may seem, that during the passage of this Bill in another place,

through what could have been nothing but a series of mischances, the Government were on several occasions defeated in the Lobby, with the result that a certain number of Amendments are included in the list against the advice of the Government representatives in another place. If hon. Members will look at the list of Lords Amendments, the first of the Amendments which was carried against the Government in the House of Lords is one of a series which begins with the last Amendment on the first page and is continued by the next two Amendments on page 2. They are Amendments which deal with the fixing of the vesting date. This raises a point of great importance, and, for reasons which I shall afterwards explain to the House, the Government will ask the House not to agree with these particular Amendments.
If hon. Members turn next to page 7, they will see the insertion of two new Clauses, C and D. These Clauses were discussed together in another place and a Division was taken upon one of them, but, as a matter of fact, they raise different points, and when the time comes I shall ask permission to move that the Amendment be divided and that Clause C and Clause D be taken separately. Clause C raises the question of arbitration as between the Commission and the lessees on renewals of leases, and, for reasons which will be explained, the Government will ask the House not to agree with the Amendment. Clause D is a very much smaller point. The objection which the Government took to it in another place was not that it was undesirable but that is was unnecessary, because in fact, as hon. Members know, it is the customary practice now in the industry to include such a provision in all leases, that is to say, a provision for arbitration in the event of any dispute arising, and it is assumed that the Commission will do what is customary. On the other hand, of course, if this Amendment is only unnecessary and not undesirable, the Government do not think it necessary to ask the House to disagree with it, and will be prepared to move that we agree.
The next Amendment is on page 13 of the Amendment Paper and refers to page 49, line 12, of the Bill. This raises a very small point, and I am sorry that it should be necessary to trouble the


House with it at all. It raises the question of the publication of the valuations in the respective regions. It was pointed out in another place that in answer to a question in this House or in another place such valuations could and would be given, but in another place it: was desired that it should be laid down in the Bill that the valuations are to be laid before Parliament. It is perhaps an unnecessary obligation, and the information could be obtained by a mere question in the House, but these are figures which people are entitled to have, and we do not want the Government to give, and I do not think the House would want to give, any appearance of trying to conceal them. Therefore I shall ask the House to agree with the Amendment.
The next Amendment is on page 16 of the Paper. About the middle of the page hon. Members will see Sub-section (4) in a long Amendment which has already covered two pages. I shall have to ask leave to move that this Amendment be divided and that this Sub-section (4) be taken separately. I shall not explain the exact meaning of it now, but, as a matter of fact, it was a provision which had no effect upon the Commission and none really upon the Government, but the Government thought it right in another place to point out that it might have very serious effects upon the working capital and finances of certain colliery companies. However, that warning was disregarded. This is an Amendment which was moved upon the Committee stage, and subsequently upon Report stage Amendments which were moved from the Government Bench with regard to this whole question made the provision clearly nugatory and irrelevant. On these grounds the Government will ask the House not to agree with the Amendment.
The only other Amendment I shall mention is on page 21 of the Paper, "Expenses of surface damage claims."This is an Amendment which deals with the recovery of certain expenses on behalf of the landowners. When the time comes I shall endeavour to explain why the Government feel that neither the Amendment as it stands, nor the Amendment as it was explained in another place by the Mover to mean something quite different from the actual Amendment, is acceptable to the Government, and why, therefore,

they will ask the House to disagree with the Amendment. I hope that this very short explanation will be of some use to the House.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having given us an indication of the attitude of the Government with regard to the Amendments to this Bill which have come from another place, though we are somewhat disappointed if he has given us the full list of those Amendments which the Government intend to reject. The function which has been performed in another place in respect of this Bill, seems to be wholly consistent with the position of such an antiquated Chamber—that is to say, they have attempted, as far as one can judge, apart from minor drafting Amendments, to insert into the Bill a very considerable number of Amendments designed either to benefit the royalty owner or the landowner, or to diminish the power of the Commission. Indeed, one would take almost the same view as that which was expressed at one period by the Lord Chancellor in the course of the discussions in another place—or rather the view which followed from the warning given by the Lord Chancellor in another place—that those who were considering the Bill there had not considered it from a public point of view, but from their own personal and private point of view.
That is the serious aspect of these Amendments, and it causes us to look at them very critically indeed. A number of them appear to be fairly harmless, but if one comes to examine the purpose behind them and the reason why they have been inserted, one sees a continuous policy behind these Amendments, the object of which is to make the Commission as weak a body as possible. In a number of cases the discretion of the Commission has been removed from the Bill, and there have been inserted instead such words as "reasonable circumstances" or phrases of that kind, which would throw the decision in these matters into the courts and take it out of the hands of the Commission. In all matters of that kind we feel it essential that we should do our utmost in this House to protect the powers of the Commission so as to make it an effective body if it is to undertake what is obviously a large and difficult task. There are some 117 of these Amendments. True, some of


them are very small, but I hardly like to think of what would have happened if a Bill of this sort had gone to another place with a Labour Government in power in this House. There probably would have been, not 117 Amendments but 1,117 Amendments. That power which has been exercised in this case against a friendly Government, cannot entirely be put down to what the right hon. Gentleman felicitously referred to as a "series of mischances" who went into the Lobby against the Government.
This is, indeed, a policy which represents the composition of another place, and although we cannot vote against the consideration of these Amendments, because that would kill the Bill and that would not be a right thing to do, we protest very strongly against the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with in another place. If these Amendments were put in for the purpose of improving the Bill, with the idea behind the Bill which was there when it left this House, we should of course do anything we could to assist such improvement. But seeing that so many of them are designed, not for the improvement of the Bill but for the forwarding of the special interests of a particular class of persons, namely royalty owners and landowners, we shall certainly do our utmost to oppose them in every case where they seem to give, as many of them seem to do, better conditions for that particular class, or where they seem to diminish the power of the Commission and its effectiveness to regulate coal-mining in this country. I shall not attempt to go through the various Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That would not be right at this stage but I do say this, and I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side will agree with me, that we are certainly going to do our utmost to see that this Bill will be no worse, from our point of view after these Amendments have been dealt with, than it was when it left this House. It was bad enough then, and we shall do our best to prevent it being made any worse.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The House is indebted to the President of the Board of Trade for so clearly indicating at this stage the intentions of the Government, and also

for making it plain that the Government propose to resist the series of damaging Amendments which were carried against them in another place. What has happened in another place is well described in an article which appeared in last week's "Spectator" from which I venture to quote a short passage. They say:
COAL-OWNING PEERS.
The House of Lords completed its work in the Government's Coal Bill on Tuesday and the Measure returns to the House of Commons considerably amended in favour of the royalty owners, with minatory observations from various coal-owning peers as to what the consequences will be if the elected representatives of the people presume to thwart the fiat of some four-and-a-half dozen hereditary legislators, many or most of them financially affected by the Bill—for the amendments carried against the Government never had more than 55 votes behind them.
It would be an outrage if this House were to accept the main lines of the attack that has been made upon the Bill. While we here shall consider carefully, on the merits, every Amendment brought forward, our wish will be to try to make the Bill as powerful and effective as we can for carrying out the work of the unification of mining royalties and the other purposes for which it was originally intended.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The President of the Board of Trade tried to minimise the Government's defeats in another place by saying that this formidable list of Amendments was not as bad as it appeared to be, that most of them were drafting Amendments, and so forth. If it were true that most of these were drafting Amendments, then it would be a reflection upon the drafting of the Bill as it was sent from this House. It suggests that we here cannot draft a Bill properly, if it is afterwards found to require all these alterations. But that is not the case. These Amendments are not to improve the drafting of the Bill. They are designed to defeat the purpose of the work done in the House of Commons on this Bill. I have never seen anything in all my time here like the interest and keenness shown in another place in trying to make this Measure into something different from what we intended it to be. On one occasion when this House rose at half-past eleven o'clock, I went into the Lobby and I was told that the other House was still sitting. I wondered what


could be keeping members of another place sitting until midnight when they usually finish their proceedings by dinner time. There must have been some very strong inducement to keep them sitting, on three nights, until midnight.
What was the object? It was because this Bill touched their vital interests. What we were attempting to do here in this Bill meant taking from some members in another place, things to which they claim to be entitled through inheritance and in those late sittings they were castigating this House in all the ways they could, simply because we were trying to take from them something which they claimed belonged to them by right of inheritance. I think the time has come when this House ought to take up the challenge thrown down by several members in the other place. I heard them threaten us that if we attempted materially to alter their Amendments it was a question of what they would do when the Bill went back again to them. I trust we shall not be deterred by that threat. There must come a time when the conflict between these two Houses will have to be determined and if the elected representatives of the people are to be thwarted in this fashion, then I say to hon. Members "Accept the challenge. Let us have one thing or the other. Which is it to be?"
Members in another place had spoken on this Bill up to the last day's Debate 850 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT and during the last day's Debate they added another 60 columns. They occupied over 900 columns in speaking for the protection, not of the national interests but of their own interests. We should no longer sit down quietly under this kind of thing. I trust the Government will help us to assert the rights of the Commons and will stand by the work which was done here when the Bill passed through this House. I cannot persuade my hon. Friends to vote against the consideration of the Amendments. I wish I could do so, as a direct challenge to the attitude of another place, but I trust that we will not give way on these Amendments, but will show to the other place that we have our rights and that we are determined to do what we have been sent here to do.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(General provisions as to functions of the Commission under Part I.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 8, leave out Sub-section (1) and insert:


"(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to exercise their functions as owners of the fee simple in coal and mines of coal and of the property and rights to be acquired by them therewith in such manner as they may think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
(2) The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining or carry on any operations for coal-mining purposes, other than searching and boring for coal, but shall grant leases for those purposes:
Provided that the Commission may carry on any operations for those purposes which may be requisite for preserving in good order premises that are not for the time being subect to a coal-mining lease.

4.25 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 12, at the end, to insert "continuing employment and."
The proviso would then read:
Provided that the Commission may carry on any operations for those purposes which may be requisite for continuing employment and preserving in good order premises that are not for the time being subject to a coal-mining lease.
The Lords Amendment is a recasting of Clause 2 (1) of the Bill as it left this House, and it proposes to insert this express proviso giving the Commission power to carry on any operations, which would include the mining of coal, for the purposes set out in the immediately preceding Sub-section. That would not cover the case of carrying on mines where, for some reason or other—perhaps a purely commercial reason—the lessee abandons the lease, where, for instance, a receiver or liquidator is appointed and he disclaims the lease, and as a result the whole operations immediately come to an end, say, one Monday morning without any warning to anybody. In those circumstances as the Bill stands it would be impossible for the Commission, as owners of the coal, to carry on for the sake of keeping the men in employment while fresh arrangements were made for the granting of a new lease or whatever was necessary for the permanent carrying on of the undertaking.


It seems to us that while preserving the premises in good order is a very desirable object, preserving the men in employment is an even more desirable object. If these powers are to be given for the purpose of keeping the premises in good order—which means, I presume, keeping the winding gear and the shaft and the roads in working order, so that it would be possible to go into the pit at any time and start it again—and if that is desirable and necessary, as it is, then it is a hundred times more desirable and necessary that we should have some consideration for the men who are suddenly thrown out of work. They should be enabled to carry on until fresh employment can be found for them.
I am sure that every hon. Member on this side appreciates that this is an important point which ought to be covered in the Bill, and it seems to us that this is the opportunity for covering it. There is a new Clause F which deals with somewhat similar circumstances, on page 8 of the Lords Amendments, under which the court is given power to appoint receivers and managers on the application of the Commission in a case where proceedings are being taken by the Commission to recover possession of premises from a lessee, on the ground of breach of the terms of the lease or something of that kind. In those circumstances, the court can appoint a manager to carry on the undertaking while litigation is proceeding on behalf of the Commission and if it turns out that the Commission is right in its claim, it can appoint a manager to carry on the undertaking.
We feel that where, for some reason or other, a lessee ceases to work suddenly and goes out, there should be some equal power given to the Commission itself to do something to see that the men are not immediately thrown out of work. It may be important from the point of view not only of protecting the interests of the men, but of protecting the continued production of coal, because one imagines that the Commission will try so to arrange matters that there is not an excessive production of coal from an excessive number of pits, and if a large colliery were to go out of existence suddenly, it might very much embarrass the Commission as regards the organisation of the coal production of the country, and it might be a very difficult thing, under a few months,

to get anybody else to take on those duties and to continue the running of those pits. In these circumstances, we ask the House to accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment, as being a ready and handy means of allowing the Commission in such limited circumstances, to carry on a mine for the purpose of continuing the employment of the men.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I support the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I think it is desirable, now that we are setting up a Commission to manage what will become the property of the nation, that the Commission should have the widest possible powers, and I hope this House will reject all the Lords Amendments which will have a tendency to restrict the functions of the Commission and to handicap their powers. This Amendment is very desirable. It sets out that the Commission shall, in certain circumstances, be empowered to preserve in good order premises that are not for the time being subject to a mining lease. We presume that the circumstances which the framers of the Amendment had in mind are that in these days, far too often unfortunately, a colliery company will go into liquidation and forfeit the lease. It will come to the end of its tether, and the colliery will close, unless steps are taken to keep it open, and since the lease, and the premises also, will become the property of the nation, it is desirable that the national owners should keep the property in the best order. We submit that if our Amendment is carried, it will make sure that the premises are kept in good order.
I am sure that all those who know anything about mining will agree that there is only one way of keeping a pit in good order, and that is to keep it working. Once a pit stops, it depreciates very rapidly. It is true that a pit can be partially kept open by keeping pumping operations going and the other absolutely essential things, such as repairs that must be carried out to keep the entrances and the shafts open, but we know very well that the coal face and the general workings of the pit, unless they are kept continually at work, depreciate very rapidly. Therefore, the Commission will be faced with this problem, that if a property, through the lapse of a lease, falls into their hands, it is essential that they should


keep it at the higest possible value; and how can they do that? If the Commission are convinced that it is desirable to continue the working of the colliery, we say that the Commission ought to have the power to do so.
There are other considerations of importance. When a pit closes and the Commission's attention is drawn to the fact that a property which they own is closing down, and that a number of men have been thrown out of work, we desire that the Commission shall have the power to look at the problem from the broad point of view of the national interest and shall be empowered, as a Commission, to look at the problem in this way. We want them to be able to say, "If we keep this pit open, we shall be continuing employment for a large number of men, and we shall be rendering a national service."
May I illustrate the point by something that occurred quite recently in South Wales? There was a colliery there which employed 800 persons, and the colliery company went into liquidation. A receiver was appointed to manage the colliery on behalf of certain interests, and he carried on for a period and then notified everyone concerned that he could no longer do so, that for a temporary period he had sustained a loss of £1,000 a month, and that consequently he would have to close down the colliery. The loss is there. It may be that in six or 12 months' time we should be able to prove, as we did in that case, that with the expenditure of a reasonable amount of capital the colliery company could recover and again become a real economic unit making a profit, but the receiver said that that could not be done, and in consequence the colliery closed down. With what result? Those 800 men lost their employment. For £10,000 a month, 800 men lost their employment, and that is a loss to that community, which is dependent entirely on the pit, of approximately £10,000 per month in wages, in purchasing power. These men come on the State, and from inquiries that I have made I find that it costs the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the moment £4,000 a month in unemployment benefit for these persons. Very shortly, because very few of them have prospects of employment, they will come on the Unemployment Assistance Board and will be a definite charge on the resources of the State and will cost the State £4,000 a month.
Assume that such a problem as that comes before the Commission and that the Commission have to look at it, not merely from the standpoint of a receiver who is concerned about the interests of debenture holders, but from the standpoint of a body charged with the management of the property on behalf of the nation, and suppose that we are able to go to the Commission and to prove to them that if this colliery were kept working and the men continued in employment, it would not only keep the community alive, but that in a very short time we could recover a very successful unit. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the Commission will not have the power to look at it in that broad, national way. All that the Lords Amendment says is that the Commission shall have the power to keep the premises in order, and that can be given a very narrow interpretation. We say that in order to make sure that the Commission will be able to look at its job in the big national way, in the national interest, our Amendment should be accepted.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: I am sure that everyone, in all quarters of the House, will sympathise with the circumstances which have been outlined by the Mover of the Amendment and the subsequent speaker about the very great hardships which any of us connected with the mining industry know will happen when a colliery suddenly closes down, but I feel that the House would be unwise to adopt this Amendment. I think we have been quite right in setting our face against the Commission engaging in coal mining. As far as I can see, if the Amendment is carried, there will be nothing to prevent the Commission engaging, in certain cases, in coal mining for an indefinite period or until such time as they can find some other body to take on the mine. I think it is clear—and hon. Members opposite have indicated it in their speeches—that the most likely circumstances in which the Commission would be asked to take over a colliery would be when that colliery had been unsuccessful financially. If that were the case, the Commission might be involved in very heavy financial losses, and I believe that if the Amendment were adopted and put into practical effect, it might seriously imperil the financial structure of the Bill.
I can imagine cases in which considerable pressure might be put on the Commission to take over collieries which were in difficult circumstances, and if the Amendment were adopted, there would be the risk of a large expenditure of the Commission's money being undertaken; and one has no guarantee, in an uncertain industry like coal-mining, that the results would ultimately be beneficial. While sympathising with the reasons for the Amendment, I think the Government, if I may say so from my own experience of coal-mining, would be most unwise to put the Commission into the very invidious position of having to decide, every time a coal mine had to close down, whether or not it should be taken over and operated for a period by the Commission.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The Amendment to the Lords Amendment seems to be a reasonable one, and I hope it will be accepted. There is a great deal in this Bill to protect the financial and commercial interests of the various persons concerned, but there is not so very much for protecting the interests of the employÉs, and here an opportunity is presented for doing some little, in certain circumstances, to keep them at work. I must say that while it is possible to hold out all sorts of terrible prospects as to what the Commission might do, I do not think they are in the least likely, in view of their background and everything else of that kind, to venture into these coal-mining operations at a loss, as is suggested. I imagine that it would be most difficult to get them to do anything at all on those lines, but I think it is reasonable to give them all the powers we can, believing that they will exercise them in a proper and not in a fantastic or extravagant way.

4.44 P.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) seemed to be labouring under a slight misapprehension, and he did not seem to me to do full justice to the Amendment itself. He said that the Commissioners might find themselves put to very heavy expense indeed. As the Bill has been amended by the Lords, the Commissioners may involve themselves in expenses without having any means of obtaining income except the income they

receive from rents. To keep the airways in condition and all the surface apparatus in condition involves heavy expenditure, but it does not sell an ounce of coal to enable the Commission to get any income to set against that expenditure. The Amendment to the Lords Amendment means that if the Commissioners find it necessary after an examination of all the facts—because they are not obliged to do it—that a colliery ought to be kept alive until such time as it can again be privately exploited, they can in the interregnum earn some money to set off against the expense to which they have been put.

Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. Member think that the process of keeping the colliery alive should be profitable to the Commission?

Mr. Bevan: The point is that the Lords Amendment involves the assumption that it is necessary to keep the premises in good order. We are dealing in our Amendment with the case in which the Commission, after an examination of the facts, come to the conclusion contemplated by the other place that it is necessary to keep the colliery in good order. There is no point in keeping it in order indefinitely; the object is merely to cover the period between the collapse of one company and the entrance of another for the exploitation of the mine. Our Amendment would make it possible in that period for the Commission to produce coal and earn money which could be set against their expenses, and, at the same time, it would keep in employment the people who were working in the colliery at the time the company collapsed.
There have been lots of articles written to the "Times" recently about the demoralisation which occurs among the industrial population as a consequence of long periods of idleness and of industrial obsolescence. There is nothing worse for men who have been accustomed to hard physical labour than to be thrown out of work for some months and then to be taken on again. It is far better that there should be some continuity of employment. There are instances in the Rhondda Valley where collieries have closed down because of the financial exigencies of the companies. As a result of one instance a village was rendered derelict. That colliery is now being


started again at enormous expense. All the social activities of the district have had to be revived and men who went away have had to be brought back to the village. If the Commission had been in existence with the powers that we suggest they should have, they could have said to this colliery company, "We propose to run this pit because it is necessary for the intelligent exploitation of coal measures in this area that it should continue in operation." That would have introduced an entirely new element into the situation and it would probably have induced a larger company to take over the exploitation of that pit instead of resuming its exploitation after a lapse of six or seven years.
It is fantastic to think of keeping colliery premises in order and to speak merely of the apparatus above ground and the airways under ground. You always have to think of the coal face. In colliery stoppages there has been acute controversy in the Miners' Federation in Great Britain concerning the right of deputies to produce coal. Sometimes we have had to concede the case that coal should be produced, not for commercial purposes, but for technical reasons in order to freshen the face so as to prevent huge falls of roof in the face itself. So far as I can see from the language of the Lords Amendment, if the Commissioners won any coal and sold any, it would be a violation of their powers, but if they put miners to work on the coal face merely to keep the colliery premises in good order and the face fresh, they would not be going beyond their powers. Their Amendment is so narrowly drawn as to prohibit the duties which we think the Commission ought to discharge. It is desirable in the interests of the principle which has been introduced by the other place that the Government should accept our Amendment. I hope they will not take a political view of this point. There is no desire on the part of my hon. Friends to convert the Commissioners into coal-owners exploiting the coal measures. Many occasions will arise in the industry where these powers will enable the Commission to tide over two periods of commercial exploitation.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I would like the House to look at this question from the business point of view, and to consider the problem that will face the Commission if a

pit comes into their hands because somebody has stopped working it. They are not bound to operate the mine, but they would say to themselves, "We are a Commission charged with onerous duties, anxious to fulfil them and to preserve a national asset, and we have a pit which can be made into a good reasonably paying pit. Obviously it must be kept going, for it will deteriorate rapidly if we do not look after it properly until we get another lessee. What are our powers?" Another place suggests that their powers should be to keep the shaft and airways in order, to prevent falls, to keep water down, and so forth, but they must not employ productive labour or win coal. The expert advisers of the Commission would tell them that that was the only practical thing to do for a month or two and that it would diminish their losses in keeping the pit in order by many hundreds of pounds a week, but the Lords Amendment says they must not do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has pointed out that in order to keep the coal face fresh you must win coal, but the Amendment says it is wrong to win coal and sell it.
Looking at it from a lawyers' point of view, and therefore possibly quite wrongly, I should have said the true construction of the matter as it has come from another place was that if the proper way of keeping a pit in good order was to win coal you should win it, but that if you sold it to somebody you would at once get an injunction against you. When it is a question of giving the Commission powers to maintain a valuable asset and their powers are limited to maintaining it without really operating it, although they might think it best in their wisdom and in trying to do their job properly to operate it, it is legislation by what is euphemistically described as a series of mischances.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: Hon. Members opposite seem to view with horror the idea of the Commissioners engaging in the business of coalowners, and they argue that if the Commission were given these powers they might be saddled with a number of uneconomic pits and would incur some financial liability. I am not sure that that is the real reason, because it is possible, if the Commission were entrusted with pits in order to keep employment in the locality, they might make the pits a


success. The House must remember that all the pits that have been closed in the past 10 years have not been closed through economic reasons. Some of them were closed because there was a good deal of financial jugglery. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said he spoke from the lawyer's angle, which I do not understand. I am speaking from the miners' angle with due regard to the social consequences of legislation. When the market for coal began to diminish, colliery companies began to amalgamate, and some of them actually closed pits that were economic because it paid them to have fewer collieries working and to concentrate production in them.
Some of the colliery owners paid little regard to the social consequences of their actions. I could tell the House of a colliery company in the constituency from which the last recruit from Yorkshire came which a few years ago bought a colliery in order to close it. They left the village derelict, with social consequences that were appalling. I regret that the rules of Parliamentary language prevent our expressing what we feel about the Noble Lords. When they passed their Amendment to enable the Commission in certain circumstances to keep premises in good order, a process which certainly costs money, for what purpose was it to be kept in good order? The Amendment will saddle the Commission with the cost of keeping a pit in order until such time as a colliery company can work it economically and make a profit. Their Lordships were not so much far-seeing as selfish in their outlook. If our Amendment were carried and the Commission were given power to keep a pit going in order to continue employment, it would be a power of great benefit to mining localities.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved to the Lords Amendment, because I believe that it is vitally necessary that it should be accepted. Many of us on these benches speak with the knowledge which practical experience of the pits has given us and we know many cases to which this provision of the Bill would apply. I can understand that there should be some reluctance on the other side to accept our Amendment because, as the hon. Member

for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) said, there seemed to be some "havering" in another place on more than one occasion about what the powers of the Commission ought to be and who should compose the Commission, accompanied by the suggestion that a trail of tragedy would follow the advent of the Commission. We are familiar with the tragedies which have followed in the train of the present system of controlling the coal industry, and, recalling one or two cases which have occurred within my own knowledge, I feel that unless we take the very necessary precaution which we on this side are proposing whole localities may be laid destitute merely because an existing colliery company are not willing to continue operations.
The Lords Amendment proposes that the Commission may carry on such operations at a pit not for the time being the subject of a coal-mining lease as may be requisite for preserving it in good order, and we are proposing that they shall also be allowed to carry on operations for continuing employment. If a colliery is to be preserved so that another company may lease it, one of the first essentials is that pumping operations should be maintained. If the Commission are to preserve the colliery in a good working condition—I am not now dealing with the question of keeping the face fresh—it will mean in many cases that coal will have to be obtained from somewhere for the purpose of raising steam, and it would be much more economical for that colliery to produce its own coal for the purpose than for coal to be purchased. Several of my hon. Friends here have had experience of sinking operations, and where it has been a case of putting a slant or drive into a higher level the company have always had recourse to opening a small seam in order to produce their own coal for raising steam rather than go into the market and purchase it.
I have in my mind a district where there is more coal still under the ground than has ever been taken out of it, but the pits have been abandoned and the water is now, I should say, up to the level of the top of the shafts. That will preclude those pits from ever being worked again, I suppose. The abandonment of those pits happened at a time when the price of coal in Northumberland was at its lowest ebb. Had we had coal-selling schemes and had a "bottom" been put


into the selling price of coal, those pits need not have been abandoned. Therefore, the Commission may feel it necessary in future to keep a pit in good working order while awaiting an offer from another colliery company—preserving not only the premises and machinery on the surface but also the underground workings, and in doing that it would be much more economical for them to produce coal from the coal face. That process would have two advantages. First, it would keep the roadways and the face in good condition and also keep the ventilation in a good state; and, secondly, it would have the much more important advantage of providing work for the men. In the particular district of which I am thinking, the men have been unemployed for years, and a large percentage of them are not likely ever to get employment again in the mines, and if the Commission had the power to get the necessary coal out of the pit they would be giving employment to the men, who would be kept in a fit state and be earning their own living instead of having to fall back upon unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance.
I remember another pit which had been closed for a considerable time. Then a man who had been attached to another colliery in the district came along and had sufficient courage to re-open it, and that pit is to-day employing 500 or 600 men and boys who would otherwise have been out of work. If where pits are abandoned the Commission are not to have the right to work the coal during the time they are keeping the pits in good order, in the hope of a new company resuming operations, we shall be in the unfortunate position of having men kept idle and whole districts devastated. For these reasons I support our Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

5.9 P.m.

Mr. Batey: The Government spokesman in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, claimed that they had improved this Bill. If their Amendment to Clause 1 is an improvement, then the Amendment which we are now moving would be a still greater improvement. They were satisfied to give power to the Commission merely to keep the pits in good order, but we ask that the Commission shall also keep in mind the question of preserving continuity of employment, which to us is a most important

matter. Some of us are able to draw upon our experience of keeping collieries working for the purpose of continuing employment, and we believe it is essential that the Commission should have this power in order that men may be kept at work. I remember the first colliery in which I worked. A fall took place in the shaft, and although there was an immense quantity of coal still to be worked there, the company, instead of putting the shaft right, closed the pit, with the result that all the men and lads working there, and I was one of the lads, were thrown out of employment. As far as the colliery company were concerned we could go where we liked to find other work. Had such a Commission as is now being set up been, in existence they would have said "Here is simply a fall in the shaft; it can be remedied at very little cost and we can keep the pit working." Therefore I submit that the Commission, which will own the coal, ought to have the power to preserve colliery undertakings in good order.
One of my hon. Friends has referred to water which penetrates colliery workings from a distance. In South-West Durham we have had the most bitter experiences of collieries being troubled by water. Even the Commissioner for the Special Areas has had to provide money to deal with the water which is running from a river into the pits, flooding them and making it impossible for some of the pits which are closed to-day ever to be reopened. In that part of the county of Durham there is no less than 13,000,000 tons of coal still underground, and it is natural that the Commission, as owners of the coal, will want to get it. They will want the royalties upon that coal, and it will be their duty to see that the coal measures are worked. We want the Commission to be given power to deal with water, so that water will not be able to close other pits and throw men out of employment, because that water may mean the closing of other pits unless something more is done in the future than has been done up to the present.
Take another case. When I was a coal hewer in a certain colliery I was working a mile and a half from the shaft. An unwise manager put a lot of the men to work about a mile from the shaft and close to the wagon-ways, and his action was the means of closing that district,


causing a loss of the coal which was a mile and a half from the shaft. In all these years that I was there after that happened—and I was there a long time—that coal was never worked again. As owners of the coal the Commission will want to preserve the coal, and it is essential that they should have power to prevent blunders like that, which closed a large district.
Continuance of employment is one of the functions of the Commission. A strong argument is based upon the sad experience that we have had in many villages in Durham in which collieries had been closed down. An hon. Member opposite evidently had in his mind the one fact that a colliery company was not able to carry on because it could get no financial advantage from doing so, and he was afraid to give the Commission power to take over such collieries. We have in mind collieries which have been closed down, especially in South-West Durham, when it has seemed to us that the reasons were most trivial, although the result has been that many men have been thrown out of employment. In cases where that happened nine, 10, or even 12 years ago, some of the men are still out of employment to-day.
In the other place, no respect was paid to the interest of the miners. Very little respect was paid to their interests when the Bill was previously considered in this House, but only one Amendment was moved in the other place in the interests of the miners, and it was beaten by two votes to one. I ask this House to show a little more consideration for the miners than was shown in the other place. As we have said before in the discussions on this Bill, the miners will get very little out of it. The whole trouble in the other place was caused by the interests of the royalty owners. In this Amendment we want to do something in the interests not only of the miners but of the miners' wives and families. A colleague reminds me that our Amendment is in the interests also of the public and of the local authorities. We believe that it is essential that the Commission should have all these interests in mind so that there will be continuity of employment and men will not be thrown out of employment without something being done for them, and without their being, as far as possible, kept in employment.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Ritson: I wish to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor). The hon. Member who spoke from the opposite benches, and who is a coal-owner, should bear in mind that the more machinery we get into the pits the more necessary it is that the pits should be kept in order. In the old days when we had "boards and walls," the pit could stand a considerable time, but on these long-wall faces it is absolutely necessary that they should be attended to. Regarding keeping the pit open, if we did not use coal and if the Commission were not allowed to carry on, the longer the pits were left open the greater would be the neglect. Accumulation of water in the pit is bad enough. If you asked any coalowner in Durham to-day you would find that derelict pits with water filling them nearly to the top of the shaft are the greatest nuisance and cost he has to bear.
It is no use hon. Members making any bones about it; the Government are afraid that this scheme may be the beginning of nationalisation. Let us be honest about it. I know that hon. Members on the other side of the House are wondering whether this scheme might be a success in keeping some of the collieries open. As practical men we know that certain strata will stand for weeks while other strata will not stand for hours. When some collieries have been re-opened after a stoppage, as coalowners will be aware, the cost of doing so was nearly as great as the cost of sinking a new shaft, because of the nature of the strata. Cost in the presence of such strata is a very serious matter.
I was one of the fortunate or unfortunate men who went to the other place, and I wish we could have the same class-consciousness as they have there; it would be the best propaganda we could have. I wish my colleagues and I could be half as interested not only in the dignity of this House but in the practical financial aspect of things as those whom we saw in another place. I am sure that every village, instead of being derelict, would be an assurance to the people in the counties, particularly in Durham which, apart from South Wales, has suffered as much as any other area from collieries closing down. An hon. Member on the other side spoke of derelict


villages and their cost to the nation, but that cost is a good deal more than that of allowing the Commission to do what is necessary.
When a house has stood empty for some time, even in this city, people are allowed to go into it and help to keep it decent so that there may be a good sale quickly. I would ask coalowners whether they would take over from the Commission a colliery that had not been properly tended or whether they would not much more readily take over a colliery that had been kept in order. We are pleading to-day because we feel there has been far too much closing down of collieries and because we have suffered from that in the mining areas. Not only homes have been left derelict, but local authorities, who have spent much money on churches, chapels and other amenities. A Roman Catholic priest came to see me about a colliery which had been closed down because, he said, the owners had not been satisfied with 2½ per cent. profit. He said also that it was very hard lines that because some people could not get 5 per cent. profit he would have to go somewhere else. That is the spiritual aspect of the situation, and it is an argument showing how necessary it is that the Government should spring a point in this matter.
This country was made in the cottage homes. You can never be sure in Durham when a colliery is to be closed down because of some particularly bad management. In some cases a colliery has been closed down by owners who said they could not carry on, and three or four months afterwards another company, more active and far-seeing, has taken it over and developed the colliery into one of the best in the country. That proves that if collieries are managed well from the beginning by people who know their work it makes all the difference. We press this Amendment in the interest of our men, as those in the other place pressed their material interests. In the other place I heard the Lord Chancellor appealing to his colleagues that, while they might criticise certain Amendments, the Government hoped that if they were financially interested they would not take an active part in the voting. They promised, but they became the vilest sinners during the rest of the discussion. They fought for their financial interests,

and I therefore make no apology for appealing for our people, who are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and who are interested in the local administration of the surroundings which they have learned to love, however horrible these may look. I do not believe in a moving population, but in men who love the places which have been their homes from the days of their forefathers. Men cannot be uprooted from such places without damage to their fine and sensitive natures.

5.27 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The hon. Member speaks always with such feeling that I am afraid the remarks which I have to make will appear very trifling by comparison. The human point of view which he and others have put forward is the natural interest of us all, in relation to the problems of employment in the mining industry, but he took us a little further than we should go on this Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment. The House will recollect that when the Bill left us we had decided by vote on several occasions that the Commission were not to engage in any operation outside that of coalmining. It had not occurred to anyone at that time to raise a question as to what might happen if there were a breach of a lease and production ceased. It was to meet that point that in another place this proviso was inserted which it is now sought to amend.
If there were for the time being a breach of any coalmining lease and it was necessary to carry on certain operations in order to keep the premises in order—an expression which means the whole thing, although some people think that "premises" means only what is above ground—this proviso which has been inserted would deal with the point. I do not want to anticipate a later Amendment, but it is relevant to the point we are discussing to remind hon. Members of the Lords Amendment to insert in page 19, line 41, at the end, a new Clause F, which allows the Commission to apply to the court for an order for the appointment of a receiver. Some people, like the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, may say that that Clause is limited in its application. We can discuss that when we reach the Lords Amendment in question, but I am advised that the words of the new


Clause are the widest possible words that can be found.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely, the whole of that Clause is governed by the opening words:
In any proceedings in which the Commission claim to recover possession of premises.
Unless there are such proceedings in the court, no claim can be made.

Captain Crookshank: It goes on to say:
or other relief.

Sir S. Cripps: But there must be proceedings.

Captain Crookshank: We can discuss that later on. I cannot discuss it now; I was merely making an allusion to the fact that there are powers for a receiver to be appointed in certain circumstances. But at all times it is within the power of the Commission to do what may in their view be requisite for preserving in good order the premises. The hon. and learned Gentleman now moves an Amendment which would provide that that power should extend, beyond the preservation in good order of the premises, to the continuance of employment. I think he said that, if the Commission had not this power, they might be in an embarrassing position, because they would not be able to make any production. If that be so, it brings me to the point that it is very nearly making it possible for them to carry on mining operations indefinitely, because they have only to take no active steps to grant a new lease of the premises, and they will be able to go on. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he moves the Amendment from the point of view of employment, and he admits that the consideration of production, from which royalties would come, might be in the minds of members of the Commission. If that be so, it entirely gives away a part of the case which is at the back of the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have a suspicion that this very clever method, if I may say so, has been brought forward partly in order to raise again the possibility and desirability which we know they have in mind—they need not disguise it—of the Commission——

Sir S. Cripps: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is not so. This Amendment is put down for the

genuine and honest purpose of doing what we believe it is essential that the Commission should be able to do. We do not mind any words of limitation being associated with our words, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman so desires.

Captain Crookshank: The fact still remains that these words, if inserted, would have the possible effect of enabling the Commission to say that, a lease having come to an end, they will not do anything about renewing it, but will act under the powers of this proviso, because it is important that they should keep employment up and important that they should preserve the premises in good order, and they will go on doing it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This must be read in conjunction with the rest of the Bill. The Commission will work under the directions of the Board of Trade.

Captain Crookshank: That is another question altogether. We are now dealing with an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, which has nothing to do with the directions of the Board of Trade at all. I am merely trying to make the point that in certain circumstances, if these words were inserted in the Lords Amendment, they might involve the possibility, under the protection of this proviso, of enabling something to be done which this House, while the Bill was before it, decided should not be done, by enabling the Commission to carry on the operation of coal-mining.

Mr. Mander: Surely, the position is governed by the words of Sub-section (2) of the Lords Amendment:
The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining or carry on any operations for coal-mining purposes. …
That is the mandatory instruction of the Clause, and these are quite exceptional circumstances.

Captain Crookshank: It is true that those are the main governing words, but, if you add a proviso which is almost as strong the other way, it leaves the position a great deal more open. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said that he wanted the Commission to be able to act in the event of danger arising to other collieries from water in a colliery which had been closed down. That seems to me to be just the kind of case in which the Commission


could act under the new Clause, by making an application to the court on the ground that it was essential in the interests of all concerned.

Sir S. Cripps: I think that the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting it to the House is, if I may say so, a little misleading. It is clear that no application for a receiver can be made unless there are proceedings against the lessee. That is an absolute condition precedent to any application for a receiver, and, therefore, in the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now imagining, there could not conceivably be an application.

Captain Crookshank: I do not see why there should not be an application for a receiver. However, we can discuss the question later on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I think we had better deal with the later Amendment when we reach it. Obviously we cannot discuss it now. To do so would not be satisfactory to any quarter of the House.

Captain Crookshank: I think there is an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I will not give it now. The fact remains that, if the Commission are not to have any power of running the coal industry or taking part in any mining operations, it is essential that there should be a proviso to allow them to act in certain circumstances to keep the premises intact. That is the only purpose of the proviso—that, when there is not a lease, it may be possible for the Commission to do something that they could not do before, namely, maintain the premises in good order. For that purpose the words of the proviso are quite adequate. But to introduce the question of continuing employment is not really germane, and might in certain circumstances extend the sphere unduly. For that reason we ask the House not to accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I will not make any extended reference to the later Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned, but will only say that it seems to me to have nothing to do with the general argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and other

hon. Members on this side of the House. The circumstances contemplated in the new Clause may not arise at all, but the real problem to which they have drawn attention will arise. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has attempted to prejudice the consideration of this businesslike and modest Amendment to the Lords Amendment by leading hon. Members on his own side of the House to believe that it is a quiet, secret and very artful way of bringing in the social revolution. I know that hon. Members opposite are easily roused, that it is quite simple to arouse political and economic prejudice in their minds in the consideration of a matter like this, and they may be led to believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he urges that it is a case in which my hon. and learned Friend has gone exceedingly Fabian in his methods of legislation. I know, however, that he is not concerned here with promoting any violence in this industry or any big change, but that he is quite reasonably concerned with a perfectly simple, restricted issue which requires businesslike attention. The Secretary for Mines has argued that under my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment the Coal Commission could proceed indefinitely to manage as many mining undertakings as they wished within their sphere as royalty owners, but surely he cannot have read either the Lords Amendment or the original Clause. The Lords Amendment distinctly provides, in Sub-section (2), that:
The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining,
and it goes on to say that they shall grant leases for those purposes. The only purpose of the proviso is to provide for certain exceptional circumstances in which they may do exceptional things. It is clear that any attempt on their part to engage in extended and wholesale coal-mining operations under our Amendment would be contrary to the spirit of the Clause as a whole, and an injunction would almost certainly descend upon the heads of the Commissioners. Apart from that, the Secretary for Mines, when he says that the Board of Trade itself has not under this Clause any power to give general directions, seems to have forgotten Sub-section (2) of the Clause, which is not affected by the Lords Amendment, and which provides that:
The Board of Trade may give to the general Commission directions as to the


exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions under this part of the Act.
Therefore, directions could be given by the Board of Trade with a view to preventing the Commission from going in for an indiscriminate and wholesale socialisation of the actual job of winning coal from the mines. In any case, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, if the Government and their legal advisers think that these words go too far, we should be quite willing, as long as the purpose of the Amendment is met, to consider in a friendly way any other words which may be considered more appropriate. The Lords Amendment provides that:
The Commission may carry on any operations for those purposes which may be requisite for preserving in good order premises that are not for the time being subject to a coal-mining lease.
The Amendment to the Lords Amendment is concerned with preserving in good order human beings who have been working in this industry. It would seem that, from the point of view of the Government, it is right and proper that capital shall be kept in good order, that premises shall be kept in good order, that property shall be kept in good order; but they seem to be completely indifferent to the desirability of live human beings being kept in good order by continuing employment as well. It is typical of the state of mind of the Government that on this issue, as on nearly every issue that comes before the House, they are infinitely more concerned about the protection of dead property than about the protection of live human beings. It is utterly inconsiderate on the part of the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines to resist this Amendment.
Let me remind the House of the essential point that is involved. Unforeseen circumstances arise, economic difficulties arise, or a company may be making a profit and does not think it is making enough profit, and it ceases to operate. It sacrifices its lease or goes into bankruptcy. Something happens that prevents it continuing operations. There are two things that can happen. Either that is a permanent failure on the part of that mine and there is not the slightest likelihood of it going into profitable production again, in which case the Commission will consider whether it is

expedient to continue production or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) pointed out that our Amendment is not a mandatory Amendment. The decision will still be entirely within the discretion of the Commission. The Commission has to consider its own income and expenditure and its own balance sheet. If, after examining the particular circumstances of this mine, it comes to the conclusion that there is no likelihood of it ever, or perhaps for a long time, being let to another lessee, because it is unlikely that it will ever pay, no doubt it will take that into account, and, on business grounds, in its own interests, regretfully as we may think, come to the conclusion that it cannot continue production.
But the case we have particularly in mind is where production ceases and the Commission says to itself, "Within a short time it is tolerably certain that another firm will take this lease up and resume production in that pit." In that case two considerations arise. One is the property consideration, to which alone the Government attach any importance. Even from that consideration, it is a fact that the property will be better safeguarded by mining being continued. But suppose the Commission can, by looking ahead, say to itself, "Within a reasonable time this mine can be opened for production and somebody can take up the lease." If, for quite a short time, the Commission can prevent one of those tragic, grievous interruptions in a mining village, surely thereby they have done no harm to the industry, they have done no harm to the nation, and they ought not to have done any harm in the opinion of any hon. Member of this House if they say, "Not only in the interests of the industry itself, but also in the interests of the life of that village, the interests of the shopkeepers of that village, of the local authority there, of the family life there, and of the miners themselves, we are not going to be guilty of the crime of shutting this mine down for a period and causing all this dislocation."
It is utterly inhuman on the part of the Government, merely as a result of their bitter, intolerant, Capitalist, anti-Socialist prejudices—because that is all it is—to reject totally both the economic considerations to which we have drawn attention and the perfectly legitimate


human considerations to which we have drawn attention too. The Government, as a result of sheer economic and political intolerance, sheer dogmatism, sheer inability to see anything outside their capitalist bias, are unable to accept a businesslike Amendment, which is rational from a business point of view and eminently reasonable from human and social considerations as well. I suppose that, at the behest of the Treasury Bench, hon. Gentlemen opposite, having listened to the Minister's speech, having swallowed the appeal to prejudice, intolerance and unreason that has been made, will reject our Amendment. But if that is so we can only say that this is one more instance of the Conservative party putting human interests aside because they are solely concerned with property interests, and it is another instance of the complete indifference of His Majesty's Government to the tragedies which occur from time to time in the mining districts of our country.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: We cannot understand the attitude of the Government, unless it is that they want to make the Commission as inefficient as possible. Not only here, but in the other place, the Government have shown a desire to bridle the Commission as much as possible. In this Clause we shall have the obligation placed on the Commission to keep the premises in order. Men will have to be employed by the Commission. It will be quite in order for the Commission to employ men underground keeping the premises underground in condition until a new lease is taken out. But it will be impossible for these men employed underground to produce any coal. They may keep the roads and airways in condition, they may keep the shaft in proper condition, but in no circumstances must they produce any coal. The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head. I suppose they may produce coal, provided

they do not sell it. What is the position? In order to keep the pits in condition men must be employed, both above ground and underground. Everybody knows that if a pit is worked by steam, coal must be used in raising the steam. A considerable number of pits are still worked by steam—and, as a matter of fact, the pits that are likely to be left without work for some time are those where steam is used. Where is the Commission to get the coal?

In this Clause the obligation is placed on the Commission to keep the premises in order. That is an instruction not only from the Government but agreed to by the House of Lords. I am not prepared to say that the House of Lords is a place to decide a matter of this kind. The knowledge of mining among its Members is very limited indeed. I would have preferred if, during the course of his remarks, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had faced up to this question and told us how it was possible for the Commission to carry out the obligation placed on it to keep the premises in order, without at the same time producing coal. What is at the back of the mind of the Government is that the Commission might begin to develop and work the coal seams themselves—a thing that is expressly forbidden in this Clause. If there is to be this Commission, with the obligation of keeping the premises in order, we want to see the Commission being able to carry out its duties by producing such coal as is necessary in connection with these operations. But evidently the Government have the greatest terror of the Commission producing a single pound of coal. I hope that we shall show, not only to the Government but to the country, that we want to see this Commission able to carry out the duties imposed on it by this Measure.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 249.

Division No. 272.]
AYES.
[5.58 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Benson, G.
Cluse, W. S.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bevan, A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.


Adamson, W. M.
Broad, F. A.
Cooks, F. S.


Ammon, C. G.
Bromfield, W.
Collindridge, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Cove, W. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Banfield, J. W.
Buchanan, G.
Daggar, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, H.


Barr, J.
Caps, T.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Batey, J.
Cassells, T.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Bellenger, F. J.
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Chater, D.
Day, H.




Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirkwood, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gallacher, W.
Lathan, G.
Sexton, T. M.


Gardner, B. W.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stokes, R. R.


Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, E.


Groves, T. E.
Mander, G. le M.
Tinker, J. J.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.
Viant, S. P.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, F.
Walker, J


Hardie, Agnes
Montague, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watson, W. McL.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Hayday, A.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh J. C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parker, J.
White, H. Graham


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hicks, E. G.
Pearson, A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Jagger, J.
Poole, C. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.



Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ridley, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gledhill, G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Goldie, N. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Albery, Sir Irving
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grant-Ferris, R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Apsley, Lord
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Assheton, R.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hambro, A. V.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Harbord, A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Haslam, Henry (Harncastle)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Critchley, A.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hepworth, J.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Crossley, A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Higgs, W. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Culverwell, C. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Beechman, N. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Holdsworth, H.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Holmes, J. S.


Bernays, R. H.
De la Bère, R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hopkinson, A.


Blair, Sir R.
Denville, Alfred
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Bracken, B.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H
Hulbert, N. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Drewe, C.
Hunloke, H. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hunter, T.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Dunglass, Lord
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elmley, Viscount
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Butcher, H. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Kimball, L.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Errington, E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Cary, R. A.
Everard, W. L.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Lewis, O.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lipson, D. L.


Channon, H.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)







MacAndrew, Colonal Sir C. G.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rankin, Sir R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


McKie, J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)


Macnamara, Major J. R. L.
Raynor, Major R. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Macquisten, F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Magnay, T.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Maitland, A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tate, Mavis C.


Marsden, Commander A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Parfd., S.)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rowlands, G.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Turton, R. H.


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Russell, R. J (Eddisbury)
Wakefield, W. W.


Moreing, A. C.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Salt, E. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Ward Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencestar)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wardlaw-Milne Sir J. S.


Munro, P.
Scott, Lord William
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Nall, Sir J.
Selley, H. R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wells, Sri Sydney


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Patrick, C. M.
Simmonds, O. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Peake, O.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wilson Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Petherick, M.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Womersley Sir W. J


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wood Hon. C. I. C.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Somerville, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Wood Rt. Hon Sir Kingsley


Porritt, R. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wragg, H.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Procter, Major H. A.
Spens, W. P.



Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Mr. Grimston and Major Sir




James Edmondson.


Question put, and agreed to.

6.6 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first Amendment of which we discussed the proviso at considerable length, and I think that there is no need to have any further discussion upon it. It merely is a rewriting of the Clause as it was when it left this House.

Sir S. Cripps: We have no objection to this redrafting, except the one which we have already expressed, and, therefore, we do not propose to divide against it.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 19, leave out" and performance."

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 24, at the end, insert:
Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by or under

the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or by or under any other enactment relating to the control or management of a mine within the meaning of that Act.

6.8 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This has been put in the Bill in order to make clear a point which raised some difficulties in certain quarters. The Clause merely said that one of the things about which the Board of Trade might give the Commission general directions as to the exercise of their functions were matters affecting the safety of the working of coal. I am sure that the House will realise that it was not intended by those words that the Board of Trade, by directions, should be able to override statutory enactments. There is, as hon. Members know, a great deal of legislation for safety, and it would be clearly wrong in our view were it possible to interpret the words, which were in the Clause as it stood, to cover the possibility of directions taking the place of Acts of Parliament. I am sure that that is a consideration which must appeal to both Houses of Parliament, and I hope, therefore, that the House will agree


with this Amendment. It is merely to make clear a point which we always have thought was inherent.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I want to oppose very strongly the acceptance of this Amendment of the Lords, because it is another example of what is characteristic of the whole of their Amendments, and that is to try to crib, confine and restrict this Commission as much as possible.

Captain Crookshank: It is not the Commission, but the Board of Trade that is concerned here.

Mr. Griffiths: In any case, in the end, as I propose to show, it is the Commission. We had a very interesting discussion on this matter on the Committee stage in this House, and I propose to quote the words which were used by the President of the Board of Trade, which he will have to go back upon if he accepts this Amendment of the Lords. When we discussed this matter he said that the Board of Trade could give directions to the Commissioners as to the exercise and performance of their duties, and that, in particular, they could give directions, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal, and that the Commission could give effect to any such direction. The original Clause as it left this House envisaged the Board of Trade giving instructions to the Commission that, in carrying out their duties, they were to have regard to the question of the safety of the working of coal.
In Committee there was a good deal of discussion as to the actual meaning of the safety of the working of coal. Does it include the safety of the men working the coal? Are the men and the coal to be separated? It is on that point that I want to quote the words used by the President of the Board of Trade on the Committee stage. He was interrupted, as he was very often during the proceedings on the Bill, and he became very definite, so that I shall be quoting words which he used with great emphasis as being the considered opinion of the Government upon this very matter. In column 623, Vol. 330 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he says:
I have told the Committee exactly what we have in mind. It is that before granting new leases the Commission shall consult with

the inspectors as to the lay-out of a new pit and try to get a lay-out which is most conducive to the safety of the working.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) interrupted him, and asked:
Does that mean the safety of the miners and the workers, or the safety of the surface?
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
I am sorry that I am not so conversant with the technical terms of the industry as the hon. and learned Member. I thought that safety in the working of coal would convey to hon. Members the safety of those who were working in the mines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1937; col. 623, Vol. 330.]
Therefore, the President of the Board of Trade clearly envisaged that the Commission, in granting new leases, would consult the inspectorate and take their advice whether they should not lay down conditions in the lease as to the layout of the pit. If we accept the Amendment, what is the position? The inspectors of mines are appointed under the 1911 Act. It is their job to see that the 1911 Act is carried out. That is the basic Act upon which they work. The Lords Amendment says:
That nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as conferring on the board any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by or under the Coal Mines Act, 1911.
It shuts out any power to give any direction if that direction is in relation to the 1911 Act. It throws overboard everything on this matter that the President of the Board of Trade said that they had in mind when they introduced the Bill.

Captain Crookshank: May I help the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that we do not want to argue on a false basis here. I do not think that anything that has been said so far is inconsistent with what my right hon. Friend said. What we always have had in view in this matter were the conditions prior to conditions which are regulated by the Act, the layout, for example, of the pits to which the hon. Gentleman himself has just referred. The Board of Trade under the various Coal Mines Acts have no power to do anything about that; not before the pit starts working and the men go down to work. When it comes to merely planning a pit, which is a matter about


which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite knows, the Coal Mines Act and Regulations under it are not involved, arid, therefore, that part to which the hon. Gentleman is alluding is completely safeguarded.

Mr. Griffiths: What do we mean by layout of pits? Is it the way the shaft should be sunk, the roads driven, or the pit developed, all of which are provided for and regulated by the Coal Mines Act, 1911? The lay-out of the pit means how the pit is to be worked. The size of the shaft and method of working are all layout and planning. I agree that there have been glaring instances in which the planning of the pit was badly done. That was one of the things which was most clearly brought out at Gresford. One of the fundamental causes of that accident was that from the beginning they were handicapped through bad planning. They could see the explosion coming, because of the bad plan of the pit.
The Commission is charged with the safety of the working of coal and they ought to have the fullest powers, in granting a lease, to lay down conditions as to the planning and lay-out of the mine. They ought to be able to say: "You must conform with that plan." If we accept the Lords Amendment they will not have that power. They will not be able to go to the mines inspectorate and say: "We have had an application from a coalowner or a company, who have asked for a lease to work coal in a certain place; do you advise us to put conditions in the lease as to the lay-out?" The inspectorate might desire to make suggestions which had relation to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in which case the Commission would be debarred from taking any such action.
In another place they knew well what they were doing when they inserted this Amendment. It has been very carefully prepared. They are looking to their own interests, and are restricting the rights of the Commission. I would ask hon. Members to read the report of the Gresford Inquiry, and they will realise that the fundamental cause of the explosion was that there was bad planning and bad lay-out. When they have read that report, let them, if they like, vote for this Amendment. It is proposed to take away from the Commission the power to prevent

future Gresfords. I hope that I am speaking not only for hon. Members who sit on these benches but for hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say that we shall resist the Amendment to the uttermost, because it strikes at one of the powers which it is essential the Commission should have.

6.18 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). It was certainly my opinion that in Committee, when this matter was fully debated, we intended to give real power to the Board of Trade, through the Commission, in regard to the lay-out of the collieries. There was one point which the hon. Member did not mention, but it came out when the Secretary for Mines said that the Board of Trade did not come in until the pit had been sunk. There is the question of ventilation, which is responsible for many accidents. There can be no doubt that the proposed Amendment weakens the power which we desired to give to the Commission, and it definitely weakens what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. He stated what the effect of the Clause would be, and now the Clause comes back from another place weakened by this Amendment in regard to the Coal Mines Act, 1911. It would be a mistake if we accepted it.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has referred to what I said in Committee. I can assure him that I believe, and I am advised, that this Amendment does not make any difference to the object which I then laid down. The intention of the Amendment, and what I believe to be its scope, is one with which I think hon. Members will agree, and that is, that we do not want two inconsistent powers dealing with the same subject. Matters relating to the safety of mines are dealt with under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, by regulations. Clearly we could not have the Board of Trade issuing, through the Commission, what might be contrary directions. That would be contrary to what Parliament has laid down. It is to avoid that state of things that this Amendment has been introduced. As I am advised, the important words are "any matter regulated by." I am advised that those words do not mean that, just because the Coal


Mines Act may deal with, say, the number of shafts or the number of roads, the Board of Trade, through the Commission, may never deal with shafts or roads. It means that the Board of Trade does not interfere with matters in connection with roads or shafts which are already regulated by the Coal Mines Act.

Sir S. Cripps: Suppose the Commission desired to say that in a particular pit electricity should not be used, and they wished to make it a term of the lease, because they considered that it was not safe for the working of a particular seam. That, surely, is a matter of regulation under the Coal Mines Act. Would the Board of Trade in those circumstances be able to give a direction through the Commission? Quite obviously, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, they would not be able to give a direction.

Mr. Stanley: I do not know precisely what are the powers of regulation in regard to electricity under the Act or the details of regulations under which electricity could be stopped in any particular pit.

Sir S. Cripps: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under the general regulations if there is more than 1¼ per cent. of gas in the air current, electricity must be shut off. Electricity is one of the matters regulated. Therefore, the Board, through the Commission, could not give a direction in relation to electricity.

Mr. Stanley: I should have thought that in so far as it was a question of saying that no electricity should be used, and if there are powers under the Coal Mines Act regulations for that purpose, then that is the way that it should be done, and even if the Board of Trade, through the Commission, could not deal with that, I am not sure that it is right that they should. Parliament has laid down how these matters should be dealt with. As I am advised, although there are regulations which deal with the subject of electricity, that would not deprive the Board of Trade, through the Commission, from dealing with any aspect of electricity not regulated by the Coal Mines Act.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: What my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said in regard to the Committee stage is true. I want the House to have some regard to what they are doing. If they look at page 2 of the Bill they will find that:
The Board of Trade may give the Commission general directions as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of the coal.
If the President of the Board of Trade does not already know it, may I inform him that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, is very comprehensive? It not only deals with what is in the Act, but it confers on the Secretary for Mines, under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, very wide powers, under which regulations are frequently made dealing with matters affecting the mines, such as safety, health, shot firing and a hundred and one different things. The Amendment says that the Board of Trade, through the Commission, shall not give directions if those directions come within the Coal Mines Act, 1911.
The real object of the Bill, in addition to acquiring the mining royalties, is, we are told, to secure the more economic and better working of the coalmining industry. If experience shows that in a certain area the methods of working the coal by the present coalowners is not to the best advantage of the country, would not this Amendment prevent the Board of Trade from saying to the coalowners, "We think the national interest would be best served by working the coal in such and such a way." Some mining engineers say that the long-wall retreating system is the best and that it gives better roads, and so on. In practice, we have colliery companies working coal under all kinds of systems. They may be called systems, but there is much that is higgledy-piggledy. Under this Bill the nation is taking power to control the mining industry and to give us, let us hope, a proper plan. There has never been proper planning. The Secretary for Mines has told us that the real purpose of the Bill is not that the Government believe in national ownership but really because private ownership has shown that the best interests of mining have not been carried out. If we pass this Amendment,


would it not prevent the Board of Trade from giving directions to the Commission to plan, or to suggest how a certain area should be worked?
In regard to a point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) as to electricity, it may be in the best interests of the nation and would make for a better working of the industry if the Commission were able to say: "In our opinion this particular area or seam of coal would be better worked without electricity in the pit." In the 1911 Act there are regulations with regard to electricity underground. In this month's Stationery Office publication there are new regulations in regard to electricity. One can well understand the desire to avoid any duplication in orders, but we regard the Amendment with grave suspicion, and we must insist that if the Commission is going to plan, at least they should be able to have directions from the Board of Trade which will enable them to do it in the best interests of the country.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: We regret that the President of the Board of Trade has changed his attitude in connection with this very important matter. Complaints were made during the protracted proceedings on this Bill, both on the Second Reading and in Committee, that there was nothing in the Bill for the miners. Now, the little bit that we thought was in the Bill concerning the safety of the miners is being whittled away. From the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines it would appear that there has been some collusion between the Department and the other place on this matter. So far as we are concerned, we desire to emphasise the importance of giving to the Commission the rights they would have if this new Sub-section was not included. We would ask the President of the Board of Trade why it is necessary to include it.
The Board of Trade, in accordance with the Bill, may give to the Commission general direction as to the exercise and performance of their functions. By the insertion of this Sub-section it would appear that the President of the Board of Trade or the Government do not trust the Commissioners before they are appointed. Can they not leave this matter to the discretion of the Commissioners, instead of tying them as it is proposed to tie them

by this Sub-section? We see no good purpose in including it. The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911, which deals with safety in mines, is entirely out of date, and we have had a Royal Commission sitting for some time to provide necessary information whereby the Act may be amended. The reason why the percentage of accidents is higher in this country as compared with other countries, particularly in the matter of explosions, is because there is no provision in the Coal Mines Act of 1911 for the safety of the mines. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade knows of the new system for the falling of roof underground, which is not provided for in the Coal Mines Act. There are a hundred and one things which the Commission, acting in conjunction with the Board of Trade, could do outside those mentioned in the Act of 1911, by which the safety of mines would be better guaranteed.
We are very disturbed at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this question. Gresford has been referred to. It is not a question of planning new mines or mines granted under new leases by the Commission; there is scarcely an old mine in this country which ought not to be planned. The system of working is such that there are very few people other than the coalowners themselves who are satisfied with the planning of the mines. We want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that instead of strengthening the position as far as the safety of men is concerned, he is weakening it, and we think that he, acting in conjunction with the members of another place, is making this Bill very much worse than it was, as the result of accepting this Lords Amendment. We hope he will reconsider the matter and allow the Bill to stand in its original form.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to add my plea to those of my hon. Friends that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I am certain that any hon. Member reading the Clause as it stands without the addition of the Lords Amendment would understand quite clearly the powers which the Board of Trade and the Commission, through the Board of Trade, will get. I am satisfied, following the discussions in Committee on this particular question, that the Clause is quite sufficient to give power to the Commission, through the


Board of Trade, to do some very valuable work in connection with safety in the mining industry. Hon. Members on this side of the House do not like the Bill as a whole, but the one thing about which they are concerned is that the Commission shall be in a position to be able to bring the mining industry out of the chaotic condition in which it is, into something like a safer industry for the men employed in it. Frankly I would like to have moved a Motion to wipe out the whole of the Lords Amendments. I should like to have moved a Motion to lock the doors of the other place, and throw away the key. It would be to the advantage of the country.
If this particular Amendment is accepted, I should like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for him or for anyone with the most astute legal mind to get any idea what will be the powers of the Commission in connection with the mines. If this Amendment is accepted we shall get a situation where the Board of Trade might advise the Commission to do certain things in connection with a particular mine in a particular district, and when the Commission tried to do these things, up would jump some legal representative of the mine-owners and say, "You cannot do this; under the Act of 1911 and various other Acts of Parliament it is outside the power of the Board of Trade or the Commission to take such measures as you are proposing to take."
The Amendment is designed to stultify the Commission, it is part of a policy to weaken the powers of the Commission, and if it is accepted it would simply cause all kinds of complications and make the proper working of the Commission almost impossible. In view of the discussions which have taken place, and in view of the spirit shown in the other place I would ask the Minister not to accept the Amendment. I never went to the other place myself, I could not have stood it, but an hon. Friend of mine told me that for two or three nights you never heard anything like it, it was nothing but naked greed. I suggest that it would be a good thing if one of Franco's aeroplanes were sent to drop a bomb upon them; in such a case we would not have to give them any protection because they were simply concerned with profits. I ask the Minister, in view of the spirit shown in the other place and the fact that this

Amendment is moved directly to stultify the work of the Commission, not to support the Amendment.

6.41 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister and to the House. It has been my perhaps unhappy lot to be present at more than one inquiry into a major disaster, and anyone who has been forced to attend throughout these proceedings cannot fail to be moved by any matter affecting the safety of miners. We are all, as I understand, agreed that this phraseology, whatever it may be, should not diminish the power of the Board of Trade to give general directions as to the safety of working. Our difference is as to the effect of the words which have been introduced by the House of Lords. I would ask this House to consider carefully what these words are, because what we are now doing may have a profound effect upon the safety of some mines in future. It may deprive the Board of Trade or the Commission of an opportunity of avoiding a major tragedy in the life of this country and, therefore, I trust that everybody will give their most earnest attention to what we are actually doing. I will preface it by saying that we were all content—we wanted more provisions, but the whole House was content—to let the Bill go through as it left this House.
What is it that has been added? The proviso which has been added is to cut down the meaning of the words dealing with the safe working of coal. That is the object of the proviso—to cut down the contents of those words. How far has it cut it down? It has cut it down by saying that you are to construe these words as not conferring on the Board of Trade any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by the Coal Mines Bill. It is not a direction of performance; it is not a direction contrary to any matter, but it is a direction in relation to any matter, that is, concerned with any matter. The President of the Board of Trade said—and I was sorry to hear him say it—that he was not aware what those regulations covered. Let me remind him of the provisions—not of the regulations but of the Act itself. Let me take, for instance, Section 36 which deals with the requirements as to shafts and outlets, which lays down, for instance, the number of shafts and the position of shafts with reference to the seam.


Then you pass on to travelling roads and haulage roads, and it lays down the position and size of travelling roads which may be under Section 45 in accordance with the opinion of the inspector, and deals with the apparatus on haulage roads and the provision of refuge holes on those roads. All these matters are essential in the lay-out of a mine.
Could it be said that the Board of Trade may give a direction in relation to haulage? Clearly, haulage roads are a matter regulated by the Coal Mines Act, and, therefore, it would be impossible for the Board of Trade to give a direction that every haulage road should be at least seven feet in height in all new mining leases that are granted. Why should it not be able to give such a direction? It is not contrary to anything else. It may be necessary or desirable in a particular type of coal and seam that the safety regulations, because they are safety regulations, should be observed in the opening up of a new mine. If the proviso goes in we shall, as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, give every owner of a mine the opportunity of disregarding these directions. He will say they are illegal directions under the Coal Mines Act, because the proviso has expressly taken from the Board of Trade power to give such a direction.
If it is the desire of the President of the Board of Trade that this should not lead to any duplication—we do not want any duplication—if the Board of Trade are going to exercise these powers, presumably they will not duplicate them, but there may be cases where they may consider it highly desirable in opening a new coalfield that electricity should not be used. All the regulations in regard to electricity come under Section 60 of the Coal Mines Act, and nobody can argue—I am sure the Attorney-General will agree with me—that electricity is not a matter regulated by or under the Coal Mines Act. The Sections dealing with it are headed "Electricity." That is a matter which is regulated, and if that is so, no direction can be given by the Board of Trade in relation to electricity as it is a matter regulated under the Coal Mines Act. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not want, after his expressions regarding the safety of working, to deprive the Board of Trade, and therefore by implication the Commission, of the right to give directions in order that

certain conditions may be put in leases of new mines to get a greater measure of safety than may be possible under existing regulations.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter before letting these words go in. We have to make up our minds to-night, but I hope he will hesitate a long time, and let us rather try to think out some other form of words which may achieve his object rather than let words in, and be for ever in the Act of Parliament, which may perhaps endanger gravely the lives of some miners of this country. I beg him therefore not to accept the Amendment, but rather to join with us in rejecting it because it may endanger the safety of mines. To leave it as it was before will not hurt anyone. The Board of Trade is in control, and it can give directions or not as it wishes. It would not hurt anybody if the Bill were left as it was before, but to insert this Amendment might bring danger to some men. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to join with us in rejecting the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I wish to say a few words in response to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who quite rightly drew the attention of the House to the very prominent part he has played in recent years in connection with the inquiries into many disasters, and who therefore speaks on a subject of this sort not only with experience but naturally with a great deal of feeling. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will take my word for it when I say in all sincerity that there is no intention that the words which we are now discussing should be in any way inconsistent with the words which I used on the Committee stage and which the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, or that, by the acceptance of this Amendment, we should in any way recede from the position which I then took up or deprive the Commission or the Board of Trade of the powers which I then said they would enjoy. The sole object of the Amendment is to ensure that where certain things dealing with safety in mines can be done by the methods already laid down by Parliament, they should be done by those methods, but that where Parliament has made no provision, then under this new


provision the Board of Trade would have power to issue these directions.
However, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the possible issues which we are now discussing are too grave to depend upon a difference between us, not as to intention, but as to the meaning of words. Despite the weight which I give to the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion on drafting points of this nature, I still hold that the effect of these words is as I stated it to be, but I think hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree that the possible result of any failure to reconsider this, or of any failure to make quite certain, not of the intention—for that I have explained and I think everyone agrees with it—but of the way we carry it out, is too great to allow it to pass in a few moments. Therefore, I suggest that the best procedure for the House to follow would be to allow the Question to be negatived, not as expressing any disapproval of the intention of the Amendment, but because that is the only way in which we can get a brief period in which to examine the drafting, to look into these words and to make absolutely certain in another place that it is the intention, and no more than the intention, that is carried out by this Amendment. Therefore, when Mr. Speaker puts the Question, I am prepared to recommend to my hon. Friends on this side that they should negative the Question, with the object of examining the drafting, but not the intention, of the Amendment again in another place.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Commission to acquire fee simple in coal.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 36, leave out "or created by working facilities orders" and insert "and of certain other interests."

6.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, although it precedes a later Amendment dealing with copyhold interests, is consequential on that later Amendment. Therefore, it would

seem that the issues raised by the changes in the Bill in regard to copyholders should be dealt with on this Amendment, which is the first Amendment arising out of those changes. It would probably be convenient to the House if it discussed together all the Amendments relating to this matter. The main Amendment is that in page 5, line 41, at end, insert:
(6) Interests in coal or a mine of coal in or under land formerly copyhold which were preserved to the tenant on the enfranchisement thereof shall be retained interests, except in a case in which the tenant has, by custom or otherwise (except by virtue of a coal-mining lease), the right to work coal in or under the land without the licence of the lord.
The effect of those words is that the rights of persons formerly copyholders do not pass to the Commission except in cases where the copyholder has a right to work without licence from the lord of the manor. Where he has a right to work without licence from the lord of the manor, he is in the same position as an ordinary freeholder. This matter is somewhat complicated, but I will do my best to be intelligible and concise in dealing with it. In the Bill, before Amendment, the copyholder's rights passed to the Commission, but of course, only in so far as the copyholder had an interest in coal and not in so far as he had a surface right of support or any other surface rights. It is an extremely difficult thing for anyone to say the extent to which the copyholder has rights in coal which would be within the meaning of the words of the Bill, and thus pass to the Commission. In a great many manors the position has been expressed to be this, that the property in minerals remains in the lord of the manor, but he cannot get them, in the absence of custom, without the consent of the copyholder. One may sum up the position by saying that the lord of the manor has property in coal at which he cannot get, and the copyholder has possession of coal which he cannot use. That seems to be reducing the rights of property and possession respectively into a somewhat rarefied atmosphere.
There are many manors in which those normal rights are valued by custom, with the result that if and when a bargain comes to be made with the copyholder by, say, a colliery company, it is impossible to say without very prolonged investigation into difficult points of law, and in some cases investigation of the particular


customs of manors, to what extent what he may receive can be said to be attributable to his rights in coal and to what extent it may be attributable to his position as a surface owner in connection with a right of support or, if his surface is to be disturbed in some other way, for instance, by letting down the shaft, to what extent it is due to that. Therefore, the quesion of saying to what extent a copyholder has an interest in coal, which would, but for the Amendment, pass to the Commission, is one of difficulty and complexity, and that is one of the reasons I suggest to the House that it should agree with the Amendment, which arises out of that consideration.
Before developing that point, I will pass to another aspect of the matter, namely, the question as to what extent exactly are the rights of copyholders and considerations which may have passed for them contained or reflected in the global sum. That again is a matter of difficulty. In a great many cases, when the coal to which a copyholder has rights has come to be worked, the copyholder has received a lump sum in respect of whatever his rights may have been. That is obviously, in many cases, a convenient procedure both for the colliery company and for the copyholder. If it were done on a royalty basis, there would, of course, have to be a surveyor in respect of every copyholder to measure the coal according to the particular surface land under which it was as it was worked. Very frequently that has been done in the past, and no doubt it is being done to-day. Those lump sum payments would not be in the figures on which the global sum was based, and that has some importance in this question, for the following reason.
The House will see that, if one assumes—this is not the case, but I make the assumption in order to show the relevancy of this consideration—that in the past all copyholders have received lump sums, then there would be no figures in the global sum representing the copyholders' rights, although under the Bill, before this Amendment, those rights, as far as they were vested in coal, were to be taken over by the Commission; and the copyholders, with others, would have had only the global sum out of which to obtain compensation, that global sum, on this basis, not containing anything in respect of their rights. That is an important matter, because

it meant that in the Bill, before this Amendment, rights—not very important in number or amount, but important, of course, to the people who own them—would have vested in the Commission, whereas the global sum did not include the full figures which should have been included in respect of the value of those rights. It is true that the global figure undoubtedly contains a sum in respect of moneys being paid to copyholders where those sums have been paid on a coal royalty basis, but it is also true to say that it probably, or at any rate it may, have contained sums being paid to copyholders in respect of rights other than rights which would vest in the Commission. Of course, when an arrangement is made with the copyholder, obviously he is given 1d. a ton in respect of all his rights, whatever they may be, and nobody bothers to separate how far they are rights in coal and how far they are surface rights. That is the position as far as the global sum is concerned.
What I have put before the House with regard to the lump sum is an argument why this Amendment is fair, but the argument for the Amendment goes a good deal further than that, and on the whole, we have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is in the interests of the Commission, for the reason that these cases would involve complexity, cost and delay in the process of registration and valuation. In the first stage of registration, cases, involving difficult points of law and custom, would arise as to what rights were associated with the coal within the meaning of Section 2 of the Registration Act. The cost of determining that matter would be borne by the Commission, under the Second Schedule; and what is perhaps more important is that a unit which raised the point could not go to valuation until it had been determined. We then come to the next stage, under which the complexities would be equally great. Let me take the case where there is a penny a ton paid to the copyholder. The Regional Board would have to say what proportion of the payment was in respect of interest passed to the Commission and what proportion was in respect of surface rights. The cost again of that in the matter of apportionment would have to be borne by the Commission.
The acceptance of this Amendment relieves the Commission of a formidable


task as to time and a quite considerable burden as to costs. They will not have vested in them copyhold interests of coal, whatever they may be, and that is a matter of considerable doubt, and differs from manor to manor. I believe the first speech that was made on this matter in this House was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) whom I do not see in his place, and he admitted that it was a field of some difficulty into which he adventured with a certain amount of apprehension. This matter has been considered in this House and in another place two or three times since then, and I would be the first to admit it is a matter of some complexity, and I have been frank in saying, for instance, how certain matters affecting one way or the other the global sum may not have been foreseen by one side or the other when that sum was arrived at. But the sums involved are not large. We have considered the matter now from every angle, and we have come to the very definite conclusion that it is in the interests of the Commission that this number of small claims should not be valuated and the interest represented by them passed to the Commission, and we, therefore, recommend the House to accept this Amendment.

7.3 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: It is refreshing in any Debate to hear of some terrain upon which the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) adventures with apprehension. It is not a quality that I had attached to him in my own mind. My objection to the case which has been put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it seems rather too simple a way to solve the problem to take the coal away from the Commission. Why not take it away from the coal-owners? We are the guardians of the finances of the country, and not of the owners. The suggestion would be just as simple and just as equitable if you told the coalowners that they would get nothing for it, that this is such a small matter that it is not worth troubling about; we said that the Commission were to have it before, and the Commission had better keep it. Again it seems to us that this is a case where the royalty owners have tried to squeeze a little bit more. The right hon. and learned

Gentleman admits that under the Bill as it left this House nothing was to be paid for this coal. By the Amendment, if the coal is to be acquired at any time by the Commission, they will have to pay for it.
The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the question as to the difficulties that may arise from this coal not being in the ownership of the Commission. There will be, presumably, in certain areas coal which is outside the control of the Commission and which, if they wish to plan an area for coal development, they will not be able to develop unless they take steps to purchase these retained interests. In those cases they will come up against every one of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. Are those difficulties really so great? Let me deal first of all with the question of the equity and the global sum. The global sum was fixed as the price for all the freehold coal in the country. The method of calculation which was adopted, I understand, was to take the royalty rents and multiply the total by so many years' purchase. But that did not stop the unworked coal passing as a result of that purchase, though the unworked coal was paying no royalty rent. The whole purpose of the arbitration, the whole basis of the reference was that whatever figure should be decided should cover the whole of the coal in the country. We are now going back on that purpose, and we can only be going back, so far as we can see, because somebody still wants to get some more money above the global sum before we can acquire the whole of the coal in the country.
Therefore, quite clearly, there is no possible argument in equity that any further sum should be paid for this copyhold coal. That matter was discussed on many occasions when the Bill was before this House. The basis which was then accepted was that here is a global sum for all the coal, and that finished it. We were not considering particular rights and particular interests—it was a lump sum to cover all the coal. The only argument that can possibly be advanced against that perfectly clear understanding that the whole of the coal has already been paid for and should not be paid for again, is that it may be inconvenient for the Commission. Now people who are able to acquire property for nothing are quite prepared to put up with a certain amount


of inconvenience, and I think if one could ask the Commission whether they would rather have the convenience and no coal, or the coal and the inconvenience, they would inevitably say, "Give us the coal and any inconvenience there may be in calculating as between the owners"—not as between the Commission and anyone else, but as between the owners—"what part they are to get of this global sum."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the first difficulty would be as regards registration. But have not any of these copyholders registered already? They would be getting dangerously near a dangerous time if they had not registered already under the former Act. I should think that the probability is that the great majority of them have already registered their rights, so that that difficulty is a difficulty of the past, and not of the future. The next difficulty which he foresaw was the question of the apportionment which the Regional Board might have to make as between the royalty basis of coal and payments for surface rights and other things. It is not at all necessary that the Regional Board should proceed upon the royalty basis; as I see it they will not be able to proceed upon the royalty basis. Many people will put claims before the Regional Board for coal which has never been worked, which has been proved but never worked, and in that case there will be no royalty basis to proceed upon. They will have to proceed on some quite other basis for the purpose of apportionment between those people who have not worked their coal and those people who have worked it and obtained a royalty upon it. There will be people who have worked their own

coal, and have not paid a royalty at any time. They cannot be assessed on a royalty basis. And then there will be these copyholders who have obtained a sum of money, part of which is royalty and part of which is not.

The only sort of royalty basis which could ever be applied would be the mean royalty of the district, or something of that kind. If that is going to be applied to unworked coal, it could equally well be applied to the copyholders' coal, and that would not create any difficulty. I quite agree that the difficulty of dividing up the spoils among the various claimants is going to be very considerable, but it is not going to be any greater in the case of the copyholder than it is in the case of many others. There would be just as good a reason for proposing that everybody else should also be left out—for example, the owners of all the unworked coal. The copyholder, at any rate, has obtained some sum of money in the past, and, therefore, there is some basis on which you can proceed. I venture to suggest that this talk about the difficulties, and what I suggest was a great exaggeration of the complexity of the case, is really nothing more than an excuse for supporting an Amendment made in another place devised by an ingenious mind which has seen another chance of getting another little bit. We shall not support this Amendment. We shall, indeed, oppose it in the Lobby.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 141.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 4o, leave out from "and" to "the," in line 2, page 3.

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that this Amendment, and the next two Lords Amendments, raise a question of Privilege in that they alter the vesting date and thereby amend the powers of the Commission in regard to the loans they can raise with a Treasury guarantee. Of course the House can, if it thinks fit, waive its Privilege.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed not only this Amendment, which is only a minor and introductory Amendment, but also the following two Amendments. The three taken together constitute what is clearly the most important of the Amendments which we have to discuss to-day and to-morrow because, in the view of the Government, the acceptance of this proposed change would, to a large extent, make impracticable the working of Part I of the Bill. The Amendments deal with what is known in the Bill as the vesting date, that is the date upon which the property in the coal in the country passes to the Commission. Thereafter, the rents and royalties payable by colliery owners in respect of their coal are to be paid to the Commission instead of to the individual owner of the coal. As the Bill was drafted, and as it left this House, that vesting date was definitely fixed at 1st July, 1942.
Hon. Members will recollect that during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, we had considerable discussion about the dates which

should be fixed for the valuation and for the vesting. Hon. Members opposite felt that the interval which was left was too long. I explained the reasons which led the Government to fix the dates in the Bill. They were these; that we desired, as far as possible, to ensure that the vesting date, that is the date on which the property was to pass, should coincide with the time when the valuations were finished, so that the compensation to be paid in respect of this property would be settled and could be paid over to the royalty owners. I explained, too, that in order to try to make those two dates coincide we had to act on the best information we could get and on the advice of all those whom we thought we ought to consult, including, I may say, those mineral agents who will be concerned with the preparations of these claims and, of course, also with the valuations. After we had consulted all these people we had to decide on what would appear to be a reasonable time which these valuations ought to take, a time which would not be so long as to enable or encourage the dilatory presentation of claims or the pressing of appeals but a time not so unnecessarily shortened as to mean that these important matters had to be decided in a hurry and without proper opportunities for those to whom the decision meant a great deal.
After that consultation we came to the conclusion that this date, 1st July, 1942, would give ample time, in normal circumstances, for the valuation to be carried out so that, either directly after or within a short time after the passing of the property, the compensation could be paid over. But, as I explained we did not leave the matter there. We made provision in the Bill for payments to be made on account before the vesting date


arrived so that when some idea of the magnitude of the sums which individual owners were to receive became apparent to the Commission then, without waiting for the final valuation, a sum on account could be paid. We made provision, too, for payments after the vesting date. We made it plain in this House and in another place—and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree with me—that we want to treat with fairness these royalty owners whose property we are taking over.

Mr. Batey: Too fairly.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's idea of fairness differs from mine. At any rate, I think the House wants in this matter to be fair, and nobody wants to prolong the period during which a man who has had his property transferred to the State, is without the compensation which Parliament has thought it right to pay for that property. The Government stated in this House and in another place that they were perfectly prepared to consider any other scheme for the payment of the money on account, either before or after the vesting date which would enable fair payment to be made to the royalty owner and would avoid having a period during which he might be deprived, both of his income and his property. I think that on all sides of the House we will be supported in that attitude.
I would remind hon. Members that during the passage of the Bill through this House no challenge to the whole principle of a vesting date such as is contained in these Amendments was ever made. It is true that the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) or one of his friends moved an Amendment on this point, but it was an Amendment of quite a different character from these and one which it was reasonable to move. Those who put forward that Amendment were anxious as to what the position would be should some crisis arise, should there be some sudden emergency which would throw out the plan of valuation so that instead of finding when the vesting date came, that the valuation was complete or so near completion that it was possible to make substantial payment on account, it was found that the whole system had broken down. The object of that Amendment

was to enable the Board of Trade by order when the vesting date approached, if they felt that the valuations were far from completion, to postpone the vesting date. That Amendment was resisted by the Government and was not pressed. We said that we had made provision already, and were prepared to consider further provision, for payment on account and payment after the vesting date. We also gave, I think quite rightly, this undertaking on behalf of the Government, that if any terrible catastrophe should arise—I think the Noble Lord had in mind the outbreak of a war—which destroyed the whole basis of the plan, this Government, or any Government in power at the time, faced with the new situation, would have to legislate to deal with it. We thought that was the way in which a possible emergency such as they had in mind could most properly be met.
Hon. Members will realise that the Amendments which we are now discussing, which were inserted in another place, are of a quite different character from that Amendment which we discussed in this House. These Amendments, if passed, would have the effect of abolishing entirely any fixed vesting date. The vesting day would be a day certified by the Board of Trade, and it would be a day not less than three months after the completion of all the valuations, with this curious provision, that it must not be earlier than 1st July, 1942, although one would think that, if the vesting date is to be postponed should the valuations take longer, it would be hurried on if they took less time.
The House will no doubt realise what would be the effects, and what are the implications, of the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind. In the first place, as the date is fixed entirely by reference to the completion of the valuations, the responsibility for that date passes into the hands of those who are most intimately concerned with the process which leads to the valuations being completed, and I would point out to the House that it is not the Government and it is not the Commission upon whom rest the responsibility and the opportunity for speeding-up and completing these valuations. It is largely upon the royal owners themselves. They are the people who have to register, they are the people who have to submit their claims, and make them good, in the first instance, before the


court, they are the people who have to prosecute appeals if they think they are unjustly treated, and it is therefore the speed of their action which will determine the time within which the valuations can be completed.
On that point, I am not going to say whether or not, if this Amendment was passed, certain royalty owners might deliberately set out, by delay, to prevent the coming into force of the vesting date, but it does not matter whether they would or would not do it. The fact is that it would be a perfectly legitimate and proper thing for them to do. If this House had deliberately left that loophole, nobody could complain if in fact they did, by any failure to prosecute their claims with diligence and celerity, postpone a vesting date which, to this or that man, might be inexpedient and which he would like to avoid; but I suggest that this House would not be justified in passing a Measure which, whether that opportunity was used or not, did in fact leave such an obvious loophole in the whole machinery of the scheme.
And that is really not the main criticism of this proposal. In fact, the operation of an Amendment such as this would make any process of valuation absolutely impossible and impracticable. When you are to value these properties, you must value them as from a certain date. We are not here, after all, discussing properties of a constant value; we are discussing properties from which bits are taken out day by day, and week by week, and year by year, and every time a bit is taken out, to some extent the value of that property is reduced. Therefore, when you want to value such a property, you must know at what date you are going to take that value, because you must know how many bits are going to be taken out before that time arrives. If you are dealing, in the case of some of these properties, with properties having a life of 60, 70, 80 or 90 years, properties which, from the point of view of pure valuation, are properties for perpetuity, perhaps it does not matter so much, but that is not the only class of properties with which valuers will have to deal. There will be a number of properties to be valued where the life of the property is very much shorter than that, where the life may be only four, five, six, or

it may be 10 years, where it will be of immense importance to determine at what point that property is going to pass into other hands.
Let us take a property with a life of, say, six years, and let us suppose that the vesting date is 1942. You will have, in such a case, two years' coal left, but if the vesting date is postponed, by the time that it has arrived there may be no coal left in the property. It is therefore clear that if this Amendment were accepted, the first thing that you would have to do, in order to value the property at all, would be to assume some vesting date. Probably what you would do would be to take, as an assumption, a vesting date as at 1st July, 1942. What happens if by 1st July all the valuations have not been completed, and the assumed vesting date therefore does not become the real vesting date but is put off two, three, or six months? Immediately it is put off the whole of the valuations which were made on the assumption of that vesting date become incorrect, and you will have to go through them again on a new assumption. You will have to assume a new vesting date, go through the properties again, value them, re-hear their appeals, and at the end you may find once again that this new process of having to value the properties again has postponed the vesting date even beyond the new date that you have assumed, and the whole circle has indeed to be gone round again. Under those circumstances, I doubt if the valuations ever would be complete, and it is for these reasons that the acceptance of this Amendment would in fact render impracticable the whole scheme of the Bill.
We have no desire to be in any way unfair to the owners of these properties whose properties we are taking over. We said definitely in another place that we were quite prepared to consider another Amendment, which was on the paper and which dealt with machinery for payment to be made to the royalty owners after the vesting date had taken place and after the properties had been handed over, machinery which was designed to see that, because of some unexpected slowness of the valuation, the royalty owner was not left without both property and income. That is a different matter, on which the whole House would be glad to assist us in seeing that any unfairness or any inequity


was done away with, but I believe that on this particular point which is now before us, the abolition of the fixed vesting date and the substitution of a method of ascertainment which is indefinite and which makes, I believe, impossible the whole process of valuation, I think the whole House, irrespective of party, will agree with us in rejecting the Amendment.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: On a point of Order. I rather gathered, Mr. Speaker, that you ruled at the beginning that a question of Privilege was raised by these Amendments as submitted by the other place. Do I understand that in the absence of the House taking note of that and carrying a Resolution waiving its rights, it is assumed that it does not waive them, and that, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is in order in arguing the merits of the question?

Mr. Speaker: I am bound to inform the House when a question of Privilege does arise by some Amendment made in another place, and I generally say that the House can waive its Privilege if it likes, because that means that the House can reject the Amendment on the ground of Privilege. In this case I understand that the President of the Board of Trade has moved to reject the Amendment on its merits, so that to that extent the question of Privilege does not arise.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Further to that point of Order. May I put this rather hypothetical question? Assuming that the House insists upon rejecting the Amendment, and the Bill goes back to another place, I take it that it is still possible for the other House to insist upon its Amendment again and send it back to this House. Would it then be possible for this House to raise the question of Privilege, having to-day waived it?

Mr. Speaker: If it comes back to this House, the House has to consider it de novo and can reject it on any ground that it thinks fit, if it so desires.

7.43 P.m.

Mr. Collindridge: I wish to support the rejection of the Amendment, and I would like to commence, if you will permit me, with a few personal remarks. A mentor of mine, when I commenced my public life, suggested that I should never

apologise at the commencement of a speech, but I am rather of the opinion that I am not now so confident about that advice, which I was given so long ago. In any event, I feel some confidence in supporting the rejection of this Amendment, because at the Barnsley by-election, in which I took part a week or two ago, this very question of the proposals from another place, and this Amendment in particular, were the subject of discussion. The fact that this was decided upon in the other place on 24th May, and that in the following week this was the subject of discussion in our Barnsley by-election campaign, and incidentally, too, the fact that the Government Members in the other place only numbered 34, made the people in our constituency wonder whether the National Government were weakening on their own proposals. In fact, I believe that the majority which I had in the by-election was accorded partly because of this decision of another place.
I want to point out to the House the alarm which our people in this mining constituency of Barnsley felt because of these proposals. It was felt not only among the miners and their families, but among the trading community because of the increased cost of acquiring the nation's royalties in coal which would be caused by these proposals. The proposals in the Bill originally cost £66,000,000. Then there was the four years run from 1938 to 1942 in which the royalty owners were permitted to draw rents to the extent of £5,000,000 a year. That brought the amount up to £86,000,000. The suggestions made in the other place on 24th May to extend that time would have meant an additional sum which, as the President of the Board of Trade stated, might be anything at all, but certainly an increase. It is because the feeling among our people was that this financial burden would fall on certain backs that we had the position I have mentioned. Our people said that the burden which the Bill even in its original form would impose in purchasing royalties would largely fall on the miners. The trading community in the mining districts would therefore have to face the fact that they would have less sales in their stores because the mines had reduced spending power. In the district from which I come they do not see why one


section of the community, namely, the miners, should have to bear the brunt of the burden of the State purchasing what was once not in private hands at all. If the country allowed in the past, God-given resources like coal to fall into the hands of private people, the burden of getting back what the community ought to possess should be borne equitably by all in the State and not by one section.
The miners will largely bear this cost because of the operation of the wage system in the mining industry. The miners' wages consist of two things, a definite base rate and a percentage on that rate, which varies with the success or non-success of the industry. If the costs of the industry other than wages are increased, miners' wages either remain stationary or are reduced. If the cost of materials used at the mines increases, as it did in my county last year about this time owing to an increase in the cost of timber, it has an adverse effect upon the percentage which I have mentioned. We visualise, then, that if the industry is saddled not only with the cost of acquiring the minerals, but with a system whereby the effective return of that operation is delayed, the industry will suffer and miners' wages will suffer as a consequence. After costs other than wages have been met, like machinery, timber, etc., the standard base rate is paid, and the residue is distributed as to 85 per cent. to the workmen, and 15 per cent. to the owners. The House will readily see, therefore, that if we impose, as the Lords Amendment proposes to do, certain extra costs on the industry, 85 per cent. will be borne by the miners and only 15 per cent. by the owners. I wonder whether that is the reason we have not had a louder outcry from the mine-owning section of the industry. Is it because they know that the miners will have to hear this large proportion that they are so quiet and timid about raising their voices against their friends the royalty owners?
I was particularly interested in the expressions used by members in the other place in the discussions round about 24th May. I read such phrases as "the right of the royalty owners to have their claim to these royalties continued in perpetuity." I wondered whether that phrase meant that, because the royalty

owners had at the moment the opportunity of levying on the community and the mining industry, they expected that that should be continued into the distant future and perhaps for ever. The stern fact is that they had not that right in perpetuity at one time. There was a time when private people did not possess these rights. I believe it is because of the announcement of the nation's intention to purchase the royalties that the royalty owners are demanding such extravagant sums. In the discussions in the other place one Noble Lord said that when a willing buyer faced an unwilling seller, the willing buyer should not ony pay the fair value of what the unwilling seller had to sell, but should pay compensation in addition. When I read that I realised the explanation why these people have been asking the figures which they have been asking for the mineral resources which they possess.
"Adequate," "full," "fair" value were frequent terms used in their discussions. I want to contrast that full and fair value, that "adequate compensation" with the compensation that is paid to other sections of the mining industry. In the mining industry, where I have been all my life, the position under the present system is such that if there is, on the one hand, a certain levy operating heavily on the industry, there is little enough money in the industry to do the well-meaning things that we as miners desire. In other words, if we are to submit to heavy costs for getting the royalties, there will be less money to enable us to get more adequate compensation from the owners for our injured people. My mind immediately went to the position of the injured man in the industry who, instead of receiving "adequate compensation," has an immediate reduction of 5o per cent. in his former wages. The widow and dependants of a man who meets with a fatal accident receive a lump sum, which is exhausted in a year or two. That does not go on in perpetuity. We contend, therefore, that the position taken in the other place is not fair to the men in the mining industry or to the trading community, which is dependent on the purchasing power of the men in the industry.
There is another thing that struck me in reading the discussions in the other place. Frequently there was posed in the


discussions the question, "How am I placed?" that is to say, "How am I, as a royalty owner, placed under this Bill?" For 20 years or so I have taken part in local government work, and I have seen a rapidly growing tendency, to which I am certain all of us will subscribe, for a member of a municipal authority who has a personal interest in the question under discussion to declare it and to have his actions limited in respect of that question which affects his material interests. Similar restrictions do not exist in the other place which has sent us this Amendment. Even for that reason alone, apart from any other, we should support the rejection of this Amendment.
It may be that I have traded upon the indulgence which you, Mr. Speaker, and the House have permitted to me. I can only thank you for having given me that indulgence, and I hope that the lessons which I may have learned in this first experience may the more enable me to contribute to discussions in this House in the future. In the election I fought this coal legislation was regarded as a matter of urgent and major importance, and not only the people in my constituency of Barnsley but, I believe, the people in the country generally, would support the point of view that I have been putting, and that is the reason I have given vent to the expressions which I have on this occasion.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I am sure that I shall be voicing the feelings of everybody in all quarters of the House in offering our congratulations to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge), who has just made his maiden speech, and as a fellow Yorkshireman I should in particular like to congratulate him upon the clarity and the competence with which he has addressed the House. I think I can also express the sure conviction, from this side of the House at any rate, that the hon. Member will continue to increase his majority at Barnsley so long as he continues the admirable course with which he has begun his Parliamentary career in offering his support to His Majesty's Government. This Amendment deals with the vesting date, and as it is the only one out of some 117 Amendments on the Order Paper on which I find myself in disagreement with the other place I should like to express a few observations

upon it. I may say in passing that it is a remarkable tribute to the work of that other place upon this Bill, and a complete answer to many of the criticisms which have been made inside and outside the House, that out of 117 Amendments His Majesty's Government find only four with which they disagree.

Mr. Pritt: It shows how bad the Government is.

Mr. Peake: This Amendment, although I cannot support it, is founded upon a principle which I am sure that all quarters of the House would wish to see maintained as a principle which is embodied both in our common and in our statute law, that the private property of an individual citizen should not be taken from him before the expropriating authority is in a position to make payment for it. It is upon that sound principle that this Amendment is based. But this Bill is a novel Measure. It is the first Bill to expropriate a whole class of property which possesses value as such, and it is the first Measure, and possibly the last, in which what is known as the global method of assessment has been adopted. That global method obviously involves a very long process of apportionment with allocation of the compensation money before the property can be vested in the State. It is for that reason that the Government have given this period of 3½ years during which these individual valuations are to be made. That period of 3½ years was based, as the President of the Board of Trade told us, upon an assurance given by the mineral agents themselves at an earlier stage of the proceedings. There are indications at the present time that the number of registrations under the registration Act is greater than was anticipated, and it is certainly probable that the 3½ years will be barely sufficient for this very complicated task.
Nevertheless, it is essential, as the President of the Board of Trade has told us, that the vesting date should be a fixed and not a movable one. In the first place, as he said, valuation with a movable vesting date is an impossibility. He pointed out how, in the case of a mineral owner whose minerals will be exhausted in a short period of time, the passage of time affects, and diminishes, the amount of compensation to which he will be entitled. In the case of a mineral owner whose minerals will be exhausted in five


years the lapse of five years would obviously reduce to nothing the amount of compensation payable. Conversely, though the President did not mention it expressly, in the case of a virgin area of coal which is going to be entered upon in five, 10 or 15 years, the lapse of time enhances the value of the minerals. If minerals are to be worked immediately they have very much greater value than minerals whose working is not going to be undertaken for a period of years, and the value of virgin areas of coal which will come into working five, 10 or 15 years hence is being enhanced every day by the passage of time. The balance between the different shares to be allocated to different mineral owners does depend entirely upon a fixed vesting date, and for that reason it is essential for the purposes of valuation to have a fixed date in the Bill.
In the second place there is the position of the mineral agent. In the next four years they will find themselves in a very peculiar situation. They are at the present time, and will remain, the servants to a very large extent, of the mineral owners. At the same time they, and they alone, are sufficiently skilled in mineral valuation to constitute the Regional Valuation Boards. They will, therefore, find themselves in a dual capacity, in the one case servants of the mineral owners in the ordinary course of their employment, and on the other hand doing this special work of valuing individual properties on behalf of the Government. Again, one has to bear in mind that many of these mineral agents imagine that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, and the conclusion of the work of valuation, they will find themselves without employment, or, alternatively, forced to take what employment they can get from the Coal Commission, upon such terms as the Commission may dictate.
Although probably only a small proportion of these mineral agents will find themselves without employment it does seem to me that it is the one remaining blot on the Bill that no provision has been made for any compensation for mineral agents who lose their jobs as a direct result of the passing of the Bill. The sum of £3,000,000 that is 15 years' purchase of £220,000 a year, was deducted from the capital sum payable for the coal in the country because it was

argued that at the end of this period the mineral owners would no longer have to employ mineral agents. A tenth of that sum would, in my opinion, have provided an adequate fund out of which to meet any hard cases that may arise.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: On a point of Order. Shall I be allowed later to put the case in favour of compensation for displaced miners?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I did not hear the first part of the Debate, unfortunately, but I have been making inquiries, and I would point out that there is an Amendment later dealing with this point.

Mr. Peake: Perhaps I was led away from my main point. My main point is that there must be a fixed vesting date because of the peculiar position in which the mineral agents find themselves. Many of them do imagine that in carrying out these valuations during the interim period they will be, in fact, preparing for their own execution, and however zealous they may be in the work of valuation I think any man could be forgiven who took his time over digging his own grave.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have looked into the position now. The hon. Member would, no doubt, be quite in order in referring to that as one of the matters which would be affected by the vesting date, but he certainly cannot discuss the question of compensation for mineral agents.

Mr. Peake: I have concluded the argument I was addressing to the House, which is that for two reasons, first because otherwise valuation will be impossible, and secondly, the peculiar position of the mineral agents, a fixed vesting date is essential. We have, however, an assurance, given by the Lord Chancellor in another place and a somewhat similar assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade, that if through unforeseen circumstances, and though there has been no undue delay in proceeding with the valuations, it is found impossible in fact to complete them within the time, an amending Bill will be necessary.
In conclusion, there is one point which I should like to make. This Amendment is founded upon a sound principle, that property should not be taken until payment can be made for it. To avoid that contingency there is a provision in the


Bill that payments on account may be made, but those payments on account are only voluntary payments on the part of the Commission; they can make a payment on account if they think fit. It seems to me that the difficulty we have in resolving what is a sound principle of common and Statute law on the one hand with practical difficulties on the other, might be resolved by providing that payments on account might be made obligatory.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mander: This Amendment seems to be nothing less than a frontal attack by another place on the whole principle of the Bill, which is, to my mind, one of the best brought forward by this Government. That may not be very high praise, but the Bill is conceived on bold and comprehensive lines. It would be fatal to admit an Amendment which rendered the Bill ineffective, and this Amendment would do so in a singularly futile and unsatisfactory way. We must recognise that there is serious opposition in another place towards the Measure and that certain noble Lords who are very closely interested in the matter have expressed their views in respect of this Amendment and about what they are going to do. Perhaps I might be permitted to make another quotation from the same article in the "Spectator" from which I quoted earlier. I always use the most careful language about any Member of this or the other House, and I would point out that I am merely quoting. The article goes on, referring to this matter:
Thus Lord Hastings, who as the twenty-first Baron owes his membership of the House of Lords to the all-sufficient fact that he was begotten without his knowledge or volition by the twentieth Baron, observed candidly that what little the mineral-owners had been able to achieve had been through their own efforts, 'and if there was any attempt in the Commons to alter that little he could assure the Government that there would be the very strongest resistance in the House of Lords,' while Lord Cromwell, whose barony was called out of abeyance fifteen years ago, said that 'if any of the Amendments which their Lordships had seen fit to insert in the Bill were deleted in the Commons action should be resisted to the uttermost'.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is breaking, no doubt unwittingly, the rule which he knows very well about repeating statements made in another place.

Mr. Mander: As a matter of fact those statements were included in the quotation I was proposing to make. I was not using those statements myself, but I was merely quoting from one of the public prints.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was just an indirect method of doing what is against the rule.

Mr. Mander: As we are all unanimous on this matter, except perhaps for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) who, in his inimitable way, may put up a fight for the House of Lords, and as there seems to be no point in having a long discussion on the subject, I will end, expressing the hope that we shall resist this Amendment and will maintain that unanimity and resistance to the end.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I gladly respond to the invitation of the hon. Member. My hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) who supported the Government in resisting the Lords Amendment, nevertheless pointed out that in principle the Lords Amendment was right. It is a principle which I have frequently heard asserted from hon. Members opposite, namely, that there should not be undue delay in paying for what you get. Let us bear in mind very carefully that though we may resist this Amendment because it does not fit conveniently into the Bill, the principle of the Amendment would be endorsed by every hon. Member opposite if it happened to affect the small degree of property which he possessed. Let us assume that a local authority were widening a road and had obtained the necessary compulsory powers for the expropriation of people from their houses; surely those people would expect to be paid for their houses on the date when the houses were taken over. The proposal in the Lords Amendment is that payment should follow possession. That is not unreasonable.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but he is quite wrong. In the great majority of cases where land is taken over, possession is taken long before payment, which does not result until after lengthy arbitration.

Mr. Williams: It is regarded as the greatest injustice by property owners if


the proceedings of valuation are so prolonged that payment does not follow possession. It is a great injustice to take over something for which it is intended to pay unless you pay for it as soon as you get it. Hon. Members would support that principle if the road I suggested went through their houses.

Mr. Batey: That would be a different matter.

Mr. Williams: Yes, it would be different. The vested interest is always somebody else's interest.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is an analogy.

Mr. Williams: It is not an analogy, but is some kind of approximation. If it is admitted that the principle of the Amendment is right, but that it does not fit into the Bill, that is a condemnation of the rest of the Bill. We have adopted a system of paying for something not what it is worth—nobody has any idea of the proper purchase price of these royalties—but by settling a lump sum in some mysterious way.

Mr. Batey: Far too much.

Mr. Williams: That does not matter. It may be far too little, but as long as the property has been recognised for a long time and has passed through many hands, it is clear that if you are to buy it on a fair basis, you must pay what it is worth. What are we going to do? Instead of valuing this stuff and paying everybody the valuation of the property, we are going to say that all of it is worth so many millions of pounds, and subsequently we are going to value it. If the valuation comes to £80,000,000, it is all to be scaled down. It would be rather amusing if the valuation came to £50,000,000; I suppose it would all have to be scaled up. I do not think there is any provision in the Bill for that. There is a determination to pay a lump sum, not to say: "We shall buy these royalties, and as each property is valued it will be paid for on the valuation." If that were done, nobody would object.
The Lords Amendment is being objected to by the Government because it does not fit in with the novel principle in their Bill. The reason I am making these remarks is that I want it to be realised that the Government are resisting the Amendment not because the Amendment is unjust in principle or that the principle

is wrong, but because it does not fit into an unjust Bill, and I want to put on record the fact that we are proposing to do something that is wrong in principle. I want it to be on record, so that when somebody wants to bring out the same bad principle in a future Bill, where the application will not be the same as it is in the Bill, the present occasion shall not be regarded as a precedent for doing wrong in another case. I shall not deny some of the arguments used by the President of the Board of Trade that the Amendment would ill fit his Bill. It is a good Amendment, but it will not fit the Bill; therefore, the Bill is bad. That is one of the proofs that it is bad. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh—[An HON. MEMBER: "We must laugh"]—but I am looking forward hopefully to the day, when under one of the slum clearance schemes, decrowding schemes or improvement schemes, one of the houses which hon. Members opposite own will be affected in the same way. I know that hon. Members who represent the miners in this House generally own their own houses. A large number of hon. Members do, and I am fully aware of the wrath that would arise in their breasts if their county council took their houses over and did not pay for them. They would be angry if years went by before any valuation could be established.
Let it therefore be put on record, whatever argument of practical application may be put forward to-night by the President of the Board of Trade, that there are arguments of very great substance in principle for the Amendment, with which, it seems plain that the House will disagree; but I think it is right that the principle involved should be put on record so that when somebody wants to do the same thing later on where there is not the same ground of applicability, they should not be able to point to tonight as a justification for a future injustice.

8.25 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I really must correct what the hon. Gentleman has said, for the sake of the accuracy of the record. He talks about a novel principle. I have not looked into history, but certainly it is as old as 1845, when the Lands Clauses Act was passed. The principle has always been that you serve a notice to treat to start with, and as soon as you have served the notice to treat, you can,


if necessary, enter. You then proceed with the process of fixing the value, either by a jury in the old days or by an arbitrator, and you do not pay until after you have fixed the value. Indeed, you cannot very well pay until you know what it is that you have to pay. That has been the common procedure. It has never been the procedure that you do not enter until after you have paid for the property. This is merely adopting what has been the common procedure for at least a century.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 2, after "date," insert "as hereinafter defined."

8.27 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the following Lords Amendment are part of the one which we have just been discussing.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 9, at the end, insert:
the vesting date shall be a date to be fixed by the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury not less than three months after the amounts ascertained by valuations in respect of each holding in accordance with the provisions of Section seven of this Act have been certified but not earlier than the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-two.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 30, leave out" as,"and insert "which."

8.28 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is purely a drafting Amendment.

CLAUSE 5.—(Retention of leasehold, etc., interests carrying right to work.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, leave out from the beginning of line 32 to the end of line 23 on page 5, and insert:


"(1) Except as provided by Sub-section (2) of this Section, interests in coal or a mine of coal that arise under a coal-mining lease shall be retained interests.

(2) The following interests, that is to say

(a) interests arising under a coal-mining lease in coal or a mine of coal which is subdemised by a coal-mining lease derived out of that lease, or which is, by virtue of any other form of disposition taking effect directly or indirectly out of that lease, held in like manner as if it had been so subdemised; and
(b) interests arising under a coal-mining lease where neither the lessee nor any person claiming under him is a person carrying on the business of coal-mining and having a substantial beneficial interest in the exercise of the rights conferred by the lease;
shall not be retained interests unless the Commission so direct.
(3) Any direction to be given for the purposes of the last preceding Sub-section shall be given by means of a notice in writing served on the lessee under the lease under which the interests in question arise, and must be given not later than the expiration of six months from the valuation date, or, if later, from the time when the Commission have received notice of the subsistence of that lease and also, in a case to which paragraph (a) of that Sub-section applies, of the subdemise or other disposition.

Where a direction might be given both as respects interests arising under a lease and as respects interests arising under a lease derived out of that lease, a direction shall not be given as respects the former unless a direction has been given or is to be given as respects the latter also.

8.29 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These new Sub-sections, although they occupy a good deal of space, are simply a redrafting of the original Clause 5. They do not alter its effect, but make it more intelligible and also slightly more concise.

8.30 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: It is a little difficult to follow exactly the effect of these redrafted Sub-sections, and I would ask the Attorney-General to assist the House by giving us some information on one point. The original Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 read as follows:
For the purposes of this Section a lease shall not be deemed to be a coal-mining lease unless a person carrying on the business of coal-mining has a substantial beneficial interest in the exercise of the rights thereby conferred.
Clause 5 did not cover in any part of it the case of a lease where the person holding the lease was not a person carrying on the business of coal-mining; it


was limited to leases held by persons who were working mines. But, in the new Sub-section (2), one finds it laid down that certain interests shall not be retained interests unless the Commission so directs, and among those are:
(b) interests arising under a coal-mining lease where neither the lessee nor any person claiming under him is a person carrying on the business of coal-mining and having a substantial beneficial interest in the evercise of the rights conferred by the lease.
It will be observed that, whereas the original Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 excluded every case where the direct lessee was not a person carrying on a coal-mining business, a new Sub-section (2, b) would include a lease in which the sub-lessee from the lessee was a person carrying on a coal-mining business; that is to say, it includes within the purview of Clause 5 as retained interests cases which were not there before—cases where it is the sub-lessee, and not the lessee, who is the person having a direct interest or carrying on the business of coal-mining. It appears to me, therefore, that the effect of the Amendment is to make more retained interests. The Attorney-General shakes his head. I agree that it is a matter of difficulty, but I have looked at it more than once in the time I have had available, and, although I think the difficulty arises from the fact that there are three negatives, and it is a little difficult to be clear how far they cancel one another out, it struck me that the effect of the substitution was to increase the area of retained interests.
I gather, from what the Attorney-General has said, that that is not the intention, but that the intention is to leave the matter exactly as it was when it left this House before. It was then, I am bound to say perfectly clear, because the old Sub-section (3) laid down quite plainly what leases were excluded from the operation of the Clause. As redrafted it certainly does not make that clear. It may be that in the ultimate result the definition comes to the same thing, but, as far as I have been able to analyse it and discover what it means, it seems to me to be a new and different definition, because of the words:
nor any person claiming under him,
that is to say, under the lessee. Those words were not in the original Subsection (3) of Clause 5. The original subsection

(3), if it had incorporated what is now in Sub-section (2, b) would have read in this way:
For the purposes of this Section a lease shall not be deemed to be a coal-mining lease unless a person carrying on the business of coal-mining or a person claiming under him as a substantial beneficial interest in the exercise of the rights thereby conferred.
The Clause as it left this House would, therefore, exclude an intermediate lessee who did not carry on a coal-mining business, whereas now it includes an intermediate lessee who does not carry on a coal-mining business. I should be much obliged if the Attorney-General would elucidate that matter for the benefit of the House, and explain to us exactly how the new Sub-sections cover the same area as the old ones. It strikes me that this is another case of an alteration in favour of the landowner or the royalty owner.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I understand that this Clause is merely a re-drafting of the words sent from this House. If that be so, one has to ask whether we have not intelligence enough to send a Bill drawn up in proper form, and whether the other House has to act as a revising Chamber to put us in our proper place as regards grammatical errors and matters of that kind. Surely we ought to be sufficiently intelligent to be able to send to the other House words which it cannot or ought not to alter. If, on the other hand, there is something more subtle behind this alteration, and it means something that we did not intend before, we ought to know from the Government. I am altogether disgusted with the whole procedure. It seems to me to be a waste of time for this Chamber to spend days on end drawing up certain Clauses, and then for the other House to spend a lot of time in altering the wording or in telling us that we have not drawn up the Bill properly. I am prepared to fight on either one or the other—I do not care which. If it means tackling the other place I am prepared to do it. If they are trying to make our language different from what it ought to be, fight on that. It is a subtle way of getting something for the landlord class, and we ought to resist it. I would say, resist every one of the Amendments, and if they want to go on for another 10 days afterwards let them do so. It must come to a climax in some way.

8.36 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. and learned Friend will reply in a minute to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member opposite, but I might reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). He took exception to the fact that there were a great number of drafting Amendments. As my right hon. Friend said, this is in substance a drafting Amendment. Whether the particular point the hon. Gentleman had in mind does or does not arise I am not certain at the moment—I am not a legal expert. But this is a very complicated Bill on its legal side, and the House will remember that when we were discussing it here there were only a very few, even among our legal authorities, who felt inclined to deal with the points. During the considerable time that has elapsed since the Bill last left us, there has been an opportunity of looking through the Clauses to make certain that the intentions this House had were amply carried out. The hon. Gentleman says we ought to be able to do our work so well that there would be no need for a revising Chamber, but if he casts his mind back to legislation for which he himself had some responsibility he will find that on many occasions, even to carry out our own desires, the language had to be reviewed and Amendments made. Considering the length and complexity of this Bill and the novel field in which we are advancing, I do not think all his criticisms about the drafting are fully justified. I hope he will not really take this as a battlefield. As far as this particular Amendment is concerned, not being a legal authority myself, as I have said, I leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General: The actual point that the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me is one of some complexity. He propounded the point with great lucidity, if I may say so, and I will answer it as well as I can at such short notice. In the original Clause 5 it is laid down that:
For the purposes of this Section a lease shall not be deemed to be a coal-mining lease unless a person carrying on the business of coal-mining has a substantial beneficial interest in the exercise of the rights thereby conferred.
Obviously, those words do not merely cover the lessee if they cover everybody who has

a substantial beneficial interest in the exercise of the rights thereby conferred.
The reason for the alteration of the words is that we want to use the most apt words to cover the cases intended to be covered; namely, the case of the trustee or the nominee being the lessee, or the person carrying on the business of coal-mining being either the principal of the nominee or the beneficiary of the trustee. It is those two categories of persons who are covered by the words:
Any person claiming under him.
I can give the assurance that there is no intention of making any alteration of policy in enlarging the category. I do not think this makes any difference. I think the effect is to substitute more apt words.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: Surely it is not very satisfactory. This House takes, within limitations of time, a good deal of trouble, with the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen, to pass a Bill and send it to another place. Another place consists almost entirely of people who are admitted on all hands to be pursuing their own selfish interests and are affected in a way which, in any other legislature in the world, would probably disqualify them from either speaking or voting. They send down an Amendment——

The Attorney-General: A Government Amendment.

Mr. Pritt: A Government Amendment, passed where it would not be watched so closely as it would be here. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) discovers this point, and the Attorney-General, having obtained a great deal of skilled advice, says he does not think it makes any difference. This House is not the servant of another place. I suggest that if the Attorney-General says he does not think it will make any difference, this House should say it does think that it will stick to its own language.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 137.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[7.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Burton, Col. H. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Butcher, H. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Butler, R. A.
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Critchley, A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley


Apsley, Lord
Carver, Major W. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Assheton, R.
Cary, R. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Crowder, J. F. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davidson, Viscountess


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Channon, H.
De la Bère, R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Drewe, C.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Duncan, J. A. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Dunglass, Lord.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Eastwood, J. F.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.




Ellis, Sir G.
Lipson, D. L.
Salmon, Sir I.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Salt, E. W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loftus, p. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Everard, W. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Selley, H. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shaw, Major P, S, (Wavertree)


Furness, S. N.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Gledhill, G.
McKie, J. H.
Simmonds, O. E.


Goldie, N. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Magnay, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spens, W. P.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Storey, S.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Harbord, A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw h)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Moreing, A. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Munro, P.
Tate, Mavis C.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Nall, Sir J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hepworth, J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Higgs, W. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Holmes, J. S.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Titchfield, Marquess of


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peake O.
Touche, G. C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hulbert, N. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turton, R. H.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Porritt, R. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunloke, H. P.
Procter, Major H. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hunter, T.
Radford, E. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsbotham, H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Joel, D. J. B.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rankin, Sir R.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Reed. A. C. (Exeter)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Kimball, L.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Rowlands, G.
Wragg, H.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.



Lees-Jones, J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Captain Dugdale and Major


Lewis, O.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Herbert.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Adamson, W. M.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hayday, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Banfield, J. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Barnes, A. J.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Barr, J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hicks, E. G.


Batey, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Bellenger, F. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Holdsworth, H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hollins, A.


Benson, G.
Foot, D. M.
Jagger, J.


Bevan, A.
Frankel, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Broad, F. A.
Gallacher, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Bromfield, W.
Gardner, B. W.
John, W.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Buchanan, G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Burke, W. A.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, T.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Cassells, T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Kirby, B. V.


Chater, D.
Grenfell, D. R.
Kirkwood, D.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lathan, G.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Lawson, J. J.


Collindridge, F.
Groves, T. E.
Leach, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Lee, F.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Leonard, W.


Daggar, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Leslie, J. R.


Dalton, H.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Logan, D. G.







Lunn, W.
Parkinson, J. A.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Pearson, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McEntee, V. La T.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Thorne, W.


McGhee, H. G.
Poole, C. C.
Tinker, J. J.


McGovern, J.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


MacLaren, A.
Pritt, D. N.
Walkden, A. G.


Mander, G. le M.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Walker, J.


Marshall, F.
Ridley, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Mathers, G.
Riley, B.
Watson, W. McL.


Maxton, J.
Ritson, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Messer, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Welsh, J. C.


Milner, Major J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Westwood, J.


Montague, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
White, H. Graham


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simpson, F. B.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Less- (K'ly)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Owen, Major G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)



Paling, W.
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Parker, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[8.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Porritt, R. W.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Power, Sir J. C.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Procter, Major H. A.


Apsley, Lord
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Radford, E. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ramsay, Captain A. H, M.


Assheton, R.
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Harbord, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rankin, Sir R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beechman, N. A.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Blair, Sir R.
Hepworth, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Higgs W. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepkinson A.
Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Horsbrugh, Florense
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hulbert, N. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hunloke, H. P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Butcher, H. W.
Hunter, T.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Salt, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cary, R. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sanderson, Sir F. B


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Selley H. R.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clarry, Sir Reginald 
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Simmonds, O. E.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kimball, L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lewis, O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Liddall, W. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Spens, W. P.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lipton, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Critchley, A.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Storey, S.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lyons, A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Culverwell, C. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bère, R.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon H.
Macnamara, Major J. R. L.
Touche, G. C.


Donner, P. W.
Magnay, T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Duggan, H. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Eckersley, P. T.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Errington, E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Everard, W. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W, S. (Cirencester)
Wragg, H.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.



Gledhill, G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Bromfield, W.
Collindridge, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Cove, W. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Banfield, J. W.
Buchanan, G.
Daggar, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, H.


Barr, J.
Cape, T.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Batey, J.
Cassells, T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bellenger, F. J.
Chater, D.
Dobbie, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cluse, W. S,
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Benson, G.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Ede, J. C.


Broad, F. A.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)







Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirkwood, D.
Pritt, D. N.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Frankel, D.
Lathan, G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Ridley, G.


Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.
Riley, B.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Lee, F.
Ritson, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leonard, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lesile, J. R.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Sexton, T. M.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lunn, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGovern, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacLaren, A.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Groves, T. E.
Mander, G. le M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marshall, F.
Thorne, W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, G.
Thurtle, E.


Hardie, Agnes
Maxton, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Hayday, A.
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.
Walker, J.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hicks, E. G.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson W. McL.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Welsh J. C.


Holdsworth, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Jagger, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
White H. Graham


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


John, W.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parker, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pearson, A.



Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Poole, C. C.
Mr. Charleton and Mr.


Kirby, B. V.
Price, M. P.
Adamson.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 40, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 41, at the end, insert:
(6) Interests in coal or a mine of coal in or under land formerly copyhold which were preserved to the tenant on the enfranchisement thereof shall be retained interests, except in a case in which the tenant has, by custom or otherwise (except by virtue of a coal-mining lease), the right to work coal in or under the land without the licence of the lord.

8.54 P.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the following Amendment were discussed on an earlier consequential Amendment.

Sir S. Cripps: Although we object to this Amendment, we are not going to vote against it, because we have already voted on the principle on another Amendment.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Batey: This is the fifth Amendment on page 5 with which we have dealt, and the Minister has not explained one of the Amendments. I hope that the Secretary for Mines or the Attorney-General will explain this Amendment, because some of us want to know what these

Amendments mean. We cannot understand why the whole page should be changed without any word of explanation being given.

The Attorney-General: I gave a long explanation of these two Amendments, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I moved the Amendment, "and of certain other interests," which was consequential on these two.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 6, line 17, agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Compensation payable in respect of acquisition as a whole.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 9, leave out from "allocate" to "to," in line 12.

8.55 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment, but as it anticipates the next Amendment, I had better explain it. Under the Bill it is provided that the Central Valuation Board shall prepare a map and divide the country into regions and allocate to each region its proper proportion of the


total sum of £66,450,000. That is what they naturally would do, but to make slightly clearer the principle on which they will have to work, we propose to accept the Amendment.

Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the reason for the Amendment is that something which was perfectly clear to this House was a little difficult for the other House to understand. Therefore, we agree that there shall be put in more simple language something that we in this House understand perfectly well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 7, line 12, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Notice to the Commission, and effect, of dispositions made during interim period.)

Lords Amendment: In page II, line 15, at the end, insert new Clause (Acquisition by the Commission of right to arrears of rent.)

"It shall be within the competence of the Commission to take from the person entitled thereto an assignment of any debt due from a lessee in respect of rent payable before the vesting date for premises that are to vest or have vested in the Commission, and, in the case of such rent becoming payable at any time within the twelve months next before the vesting date, the Commission shall, on being required so to do by notice in writing served on them by the person entitled thereto at any time before the expiration of twelve months from the vesting date, take an assignment of any debt due from the lessee in respect thereof at a price to he determined by agreement between that person and the Commission or, in default of agreement, by arbitration."

8.58 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause deals with the case in which rent is due from a colliery company to a royalty owner and it is unpaid in respect of the 12 months before the vesting date. In these circumstances the royalty owner up to the vesting date would have the right of distraint, but once his property is taken from him by the Commission that right of distraint will be lost. The Clause provides that if the royalty owner desires, the Commission shall take over the debt, not on its face value but at a price to be determined by agreement, or, in default of agreement, by arbitration. The reason for that provision

is that the royalty owner loses his right of distraint and recovery, and unless you had a provision of this kind obviously the royalty owner might exercise his right of distraint or recovery before that right passed from him at the vesting date. Any doubt with regard to the debt will be reflected in the price which is determined.

8.59 P.m.

Mr. Pritt: This is surely an undesirable and probably unnecessary Amendment. In the first place, I suppose that in the mining community people normally pay their debts, and normally pay them without having their property distrained on for the purpose of enforcing payment. Therefore, we are dealing here with an exceptional case. I agree that legislation ought to cover exceptional cases, but let us see what is sought to be done here. I cannot recollect any previous attempt to apply the principle of saying to a body, "Here is a debt which 'A' owes to 'B' and it would be convenient and we insist on your buying and taking over the debt." If it is a good debt, there is no need to talk about it, but if it is a bad or doubtful debt, then it is difficult to assess the amount, and if you go to an arbitrator he may give more than it is worth. Surely, it is a wrong and very curious principle to say to the Commission: "You shall buy other people's debts and turn yourself into a glorified debt collector, and run round collecting debts which were not contracted with you, which you do not want, but which you have been compelled to buy." I do not know whether this is a Government Amendment or not, but I have no doubt that it commended itself to Noble Lords, who have been aptly described in the "Spectator," which description we cannot quote. It is certainly a wrong principle to ask the Commission to take over this responsibility, instead of the royalty owner being left in the ordinary way to collect his debts, secure or insecure, from the person who contracted the debt, assuming that he is a solvent debtor. I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is an Amendment in which the royalty owners, who are so well represented in the other place, are once again looking after their own interests.


If I understand the new Clause correctly, it says that they shall have the right to pass on their bad debts to the Commission. These people have for centuries enjoyed the certainties and escaped the risks of the industry. They have themselves described royalties as being the best gilt-edged securities in the country, and now they want to make sure that if there are debts at the time the Commission take over, they will have the right to compel the Commission to take over the debts and, if necessary, go to arbitration. The royalty owners have done a disservice to the industry throughout its history; they have never rendered any service, and now they want to pass on their bad debts to the Commission. They want to saddle the Commission with debts which they may never be able to collect. Under this Bill we are placing responsibilities upon the Commission on behalf of the nation. It is a national Commission, representative of the country, and we have no right to saddle this public Commission with something which we would not dare to place upon a private company.
I should like to know whether this Clause would apply to any debt that might exist. As I understand it, it relates to any debt from a colliery company or a leaseholder which falls due for payment within the 12 months before the vesting date. Surely, that does not mean a debt contract in that 12 months? If I am correct it means that the payment must fall due during that time. It is possible that there may be collieries that will owe two, three to four years' royalties and they have been postponing payment, and they may become payable in the 12 months before the vesting date, and the Commission will have to take them over at a sum to be assessed by the arbitrator. I should like to know whether the Clause relates only to a debt that will accrue in the 12 months before the vesting date. We view this and all the other Amendments from the other place with suspicion. I remember many speeches in which hon. Members talked about taking the unemployed out of politics. This is the royalty owners in politics. As representatives of the people it is our duty to be suspicious.
Is the debt which they can pass to the Commission a debt which has accrued in

the 12 months immediately preceding the vesting date, or is it a debt which may have accumulated in previous years and happens to fall due for payment in that period? My second question is this. A colliery company may become bankrupt and it may have a number of debts, including debts for royalties and arrears of wages and for compensation. We have known of cases where a colliery company has gone bankrupt where the royalty owners have got every penny and the workers and those who had been injured did not get a penny piece. If in this period a colliery company goes bankrupt and has arrears for wages, will the royalty owners get their debts by compelling the Commission to accept them, and will the people to whom wages are due or compensation is payable, those people who have sold their labour and received injury in their employment, local tradesmen who have supplied them with goods, receive no consideration at all, while the royalty owners are to be safe because the nation is to take over their debts? This point calls for some explanation, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

9.7 P.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: When we have been discussing the question of the vesting date we have been dealing with huge sums of money. We have been talking about the £66,000,000, but here we have an Amendment from the Lords which seems to me to reduce it to a most miserly level. Shakespeare's Shylock is always held up as the man who wanted his full pound of flesh, and the only thing which prevented him getting it was that he was likely to spill a drop of blood. Here we have a picture of the mind of the people in another place, people who have been lauded as an example of nobility and aristocracy and everything else that is fine in the British race, but when it comes down to filthy lucre they become so debased that they do not think in millions but actually think in coppers. Under the Agriculture Act, which prevents people from getting the potatoes they want, we can sell only those potatoes which will go through the mesh, but the Lords are prepared to put everything through the mesh. This for me is a most splendid thing for use in the next election; the mean and miserable way in which the Lords are afraid that they are going to lose a penny.
What do they propose to do? It may not be necessarily a bad debt. It may be a debt that has accumulated because a mine has been going through a bad period, and the royalty owner, who probably has £1,000 a year in royalties, may have been getting only £500 of that in order to allow the pit to get through the difficult period. That debt has accumulated. The company is not in a position to pay when the vesting date comes, but the people in the other place say, "We will not bother about the colliery company now, we will not go to the expense of getting that bad debt. Here is a better thing: a gilt-edged security. The nation is taking over the royalty rents. The Commissioners are doing well in Yorkshire and badly in certain portions of Durham and Northumberland, but what they are losing on the swings they are getting on the roundabouts. The Commissioners will be responsible for the debts of our company up to and within 12 months of the vesting date." This is a scandalous Amendment. It is mean, miserable and dispicable. It shows the depths to which Noble Lords are prepared to descend when they are chasing the almighty dollar.

9.11 p.m.

The Attorney-General: May I answer one or two questions which have been put to me. The Amendment applies to rent, and applies only to rent payable within 12 months of the vesting date. The reason for it is that by the operation of the Bill the remedy of distraint and re-entry will be taken away at the vesting date, and the substitute for that is not, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, a guarantee of the debt but a sum of whatever it may be found to be worth.

9.12 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The only thing which really surprises me about this Amendment is that their Lordships have forgotten to put in the 12 months interest on the rent. There must have been some grave oversight for their Lordships to have forgotten that important item. The Attorney-General has told us that this operates in respect of the rent payable. We knew that, because that is what the Clause says. What my hon. Friend asked was, when does rent become payable? Is it the amount of rent accruing in the 12 months, or on the date on

which rent is usually payable or the date upon which the rent is payable because it is rent in arrears? Rent is always payable. Rent 10 years in arrear is rent payable, and it is payable within the last 12 months of the date on which the vesting date closes. As far as I can see there is no reason why this should not cover any rent which has not been paid, and which is therefore payable within 12 months of the vesting date. It is not rent due, which would be a perfectly well understood term; it is not rent becoming payable. It is in respect of rent payable before the vesting date, and in the case of such rent becoming payable at any time within the 12 months before the vesting date.
Does not the rent become payable if it is in arrears? I should have thought it did. Does it cease to be payable because it is in arrears? That was the question which was put to the right hon. Gentleman and which he has not yet answered. One of the real objections to this Clause is that it has been inserted. It was not considered to be necessary either by the advisers of the Government or by the House. This was not thought to be a matter in which it was necessary to protect the royalty owners. When the Bill left the House, it was considered that the risk was one which could properly be run. After all, what is the risk? The only risk is that the royalty owner might not be able to distrain for his rent for 12 months. He might not be able to distrain owing to the vesting date. That is the only risk he runs.

Mr. Stanley: I thought that the risk was that because he is going to be deprived of his rent he might distrain during that 12 months. Surely, that is a thing we all want to avoid.

Sir S. Cripps: I am dealing with the risk which the royalty owner runs. The only risk is that after the vesting date, he might not be able to distrain. I do not know how many cases there are on record of distraints on coal mines by royalty owners, but I think there are singularly few. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever heard of one. It is not a thing that is done very often, because the only property that could be got by distraint would be the machinery, the movable machinery at the pithead or possibly some of the tubs at the pit bottom, and that would inevitably stop the operation of the mine completely


and therefore make it much less likely that any rent would ever be recovered. I should have thought that the remedy of distraint as regards coal-mining operations was a remedy that was seldom, if ever, employed, and that therefore the risk, as far as that was concerned, was very small.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this might be of convenience to the Commission, so as to avoid the possibility of distraint during the 12 months preceding. I have already pointed out that the risk is a very small one; but there are great difficulties which this would place upon, the Commission. For instance, there is the difficulty that will be created by the Commission going in as a landlord and starting its career as a landlord with a tenant who is indebted to it already. Obviously that is a very undesirable position for any landlord to take up vis-à-vis a new tenant. One would have thought that the whole benefit was that the Commission would start with a clean sheet rather than with all the past indebtedness. Obviously, if the Commission has to start by dunning the tenant for old rents which are not due to it but due to its predecessor, it will be a very unfortunate start as regards the relationship between the Commission and its tenants. We cannot see any earthly reason why, simply for the sake of benefiting hypothetically the royalty owners, the Commission should have to start its career with that very unpleasant onus upon it, which is very likely to upset its relations with its tenants.
In addition to that, there is the difficulty which the Commission will have as regards arbitration. I suppose it is well known to everybody that in all arbitrations of this type, the person who is claiming against a public authority which has masses of available money invariably gets a very good deal. In fact, he comes off much better than he would if he were making a claim against an impecunious tenant who could not pay the rent, and in the great majority of cases the valuation of the chance of getting that rent will inevitably be a valuation against the Commission; in other words, the Commission will pay more than the market value for this indebtedness, and taking it over all, they will never recover the amount of money which, in fact, they will pay.
There are many reasons why pressure would be put on a public body such as the Commission not to dun the colliery owners for these past rents. All sorts of excuses would be brought forward—that it would damage the industry, that it would stop this or that mine, and so on. Once it becomes a question of the Commission being owed the money and not the individual royalty owner, everybody will think it is only fair that the risk should be foregone. Consequently, it is absolutely certain that the effect of this Clause will be to give the royalty owners more than they themselves would recover and to make the Commission pay much more than they will ever recover by the process of law or by any other process. For those reasons, we think that this is another device to get another little bit for the royalty owners. The House did not think that this Clause was necessary when the Bill was brought forward, and we resent the royalty owners in the House of Lords putting it in for their own benefit.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General did not attempt to answer the very important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) as to what would be the position of a colliery going bankrupt during the year, and whether the royalty owners would be considered before the wage earners or the compensation. The other question which arises is that of the accumulated debt. The President of the Board of Trade, in an interruption, said that because of their going out of business at the end of the year, they might make a distraint on some mine in connection with which a debt was owed. I would like to encourage one of these royalty owners to make a distraint on a mine, for I am sure that it would be one of the outstanding exposures that could be made of the robbery which the royalty owners represent. What an effect it would have, not only in the area where the distraint was made, but throughout the country.
It is because they know the very weak condition they are in, because they know that there are debts which they cannot possibly collect, and because they know the exposure that they would make of themselves if they tried to get a distraint


and force the matter into the public view, that they wish to put this Clause into the Bill. They have been tolerated because they have carried on their evil practices as secretly as possible, but once they came into the open and the people of the country got to know of what had been going on, the Commission would have very great difficulty in paying any of them, because there would be such feeling against the whole process of robbery on the part of those who have been exhibiting themselves recently in the other place.
This Amendment reminds me of a burglar who goes to a policeman and says, "I am going in to rob that house, and I want you to come along with me and see that the owner does not hide anything away." That is the whole idea behind this Amendment and a whole series of these Amendments. "The robber gang have seized our land"—that is a line from one of our songs; they have seized the money coming from the coal mines, and now they ask that the Commission should have the responsibility of seeing that every penny is got, without any regard whatever to the welfare of the mining industry and of the miners. That should be the important thing, but the safety of the miners is the last thing that enters into the minds of those responsible for this Bill. But for the miners there would be no British Empire, no industry of any kind. We should concern ourselves with the miners and the safety of the miners, and reject this Amendment.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am very much astonished that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. I can only think that they do so in order to assist another place in its determination to obtain the maximum amount of remuneration for the royalty owners from the Commission. It seems to me that the Government's attitude of profound sympathy with the Lords Amendment was indicated when a previous Amendment was being considered which was an infringement of the Privilege of this House and that Amendment was not rejected out of hand by the Government. That opened my eyes, and makes me look with great suspicion upon any support which they may accord to subsequent Amendments. The explanation given to justify this Amendment is that the royalty

owners at a date subsequent to the vesting date might be placed under the disability of not having a right of re-entry into the mine. Surely they have the same legal protection that all other debtors have—the customary method of collecting debts through the county court. But instead of doing their own work they desire to turn the Commission into a debt-collecting institution on their behalf.
A very strong point against this Amendment is that pressure would be brought to bear in various directions upon the Commission in order that the debts which they have accepted should not be pressed too severely. We have an illustration of that in the district from which I come, Newcastle-on-Tyne, which is a large owner of royalties, and again and again the Corporation have been approached with a view to the reduction of rentals and the extinguishment of debts, on the ground that if those debts were pressed or there was not a reduction of the rentals, the mines might not work as successfully as they would otherwise do and there might be dismissals of workmen. That is a strong reason why the Commission should not be placed in the position of being debt collectors for the royalty owners. The royalty owners apparently have had extreme difficulty in collecting many of their debts, because this new Clause says that the Commission shall
take an assignment of any debt due from the lessee in respect thereof at a price to be determined by agreement between that person and the Commission or, in default of agreement, by arbitration.
It is quite clear that those who framed this Amendment had in mind some very large amounts of debts which they are going to ask the Commission to take over by agreement between the debtors and the Commission—debts which under normal circumstances probably would never be collected at all. It seems to me that this Amendment is just about as mean as the previous one. It is asking a public corporation to become a debt-collecting agency and to force unhappy clients, presumably by the power of the law, to pay what hitherto they probably have been unable to pay to the royalty owners.

9.33 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: Although I speak as a royalty owner, and this Amendment obviously is an advantage to the royalty owners, yet I cannot see any good reasons


for accepting it. The idea that you would in the last period get an enormous number of distraints on the collieries by royalty owners seems to me a very poor argument. I do not believe it will happen, and I am surprised that the Commission is to be landed with these debts. As a trustee I have had a good deal to do with these debts and seen the various ways in which the debtors can be let off. These debts are personal debts and should remain, so that the Commission may start fair without having these debts hanging over them. I was very surprised when this Amendment was accepted by the Government. I cannot believe that the reason for its acceptance is the fear of distraint by royalty owners on colliery proprietors, and I cannot believe that it is a wise thing for the Government to accept it.

9.35 P.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I join with those hon. Members who have spoken in expressing surprise at the fact that the Government have accepted this Amendment. The last speaker said that he, as a royalty owner, was surprised at the Government's action. I suppose there have been few instances on record in which the other place has acted as they have acted in relation to this Clause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) tells me that there is one case on record in which a Noble Lord declared that certain property belonged to him, and claimed the right to vote against certain action that was proposed by the Government in relation to it. Here we have the other place acting in relation to this Bill in a way which is directly to their own personal advantage. In local government that would be a very serious thing indeed. There is a provision in the Local Government Act, 1933, which prevents a member of a council voting or taking part in a discussion in which it can be said there is involved any pecuniary interest, either of his own or of his wife's. Apparently, the other place takes no notice of any provision of that kind, but go forward with these demands upon the country in, if I may so describe it, a most brazen manner. I feel sure that the people of the country will be not only surprised but disgusted with the attitude which has been taken up in another place on this question.
A previous speaker said that those in another place thought not only in terms of gold but also in terms of copper, and we have an instance in this Clause. They propose to pass on to the Commission the bad debts which may arise in depressed coal-mining districts where it is unlikely that the individual royalty owner will be able to recover. That simply means that if the Commission fails to collect the amount of the debt, the burden will have to be borne by the miners of this country. The Commission will have to charge royalties to the extent of its losses in connection with these bad debts. What has been proposed in another place is that these bad debts should be unloaded on to the miners of the country who are already suffering so much from low wages. It is a disgusting attitude for those in another place to take up, and it is even more disgusting for the Government to acquiesce in it.
This Amendment ought not to be tolerated by the House. I am sure it does not represent the views of the people and its acceptance is a most despicable concession by the Government to another place. I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that what has been done in regard to this Bill is sufficient justification for a very firm stand by this House against another place. We ought to make this a real test. I understand that 85 votes in the other place carried this Amendment. Why, then, should the Government accept it? In plain English, it means putting money into the pockets of the coalowners which they could not get under the other arrangements in the Bill. I hope that, even now, the Government will make a stand and refuse to accept the Amendment. I hope that that line will be taken by the House of Commons and I feel sure that no hon. Member would be able to justify to his constituents a vote in favour of the Amendment.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Batey: The President of the Board of Trade in an interjection which he made a short time ago gave the impression that he was anxious to speak upon this Amendment. I invite him now to explain this Clause more fully than it has been explained up to now, and if he accepts that invitation there is one point to which I direct his attention. This Clause proposes to make the Commission debt collectors. When the Bill was first brought


before the House the right hon. Gentleman had in mind what the functions of the Commission were to be, and those functions were settled by the House during the discussions on the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had any idea that the Commission should include debt collecting in their functions, he ought to have included it in Clause 2 of the Bill. As a matter of fact, both this House and the other place have dealt with Clause 2 already, and no advantage has been taken of the opportunity to alter the functions of the Commission in this respect. The proposed alteration of the vesting date was bad, but I consider this proposal far worse. It is one of the most impudent things that even royalty owners could do, and royalty owners can be as bad as any men can be. Listening to the Debates in the other place I was pleased when I heard the royalty owners squeal seeing that they have made the miners suffer. If anybody in this country made the miners suffer in the past it was the royalty owners and one was glad to find a Bill before the other place which made them squeal.
There is another point. If this Clause is passed and the Commission is to be saddled with this responsibility, where are they to get the money to pay these debts? The vesting date is 1st July, 1942. Suppose that six months' rent is due by a colliery owner in December, 1941. The Commission take possession of the coal in July. If they say to the colliery owner,

"You owe six months' rent, due in December, 1941," the colliery owner can say, "What right have you to interfere? That debt is not owed to you. You were not then the owner of the coal. The royalty owners are the only persons who can claim that debt." Suppose one of my hon. Friends here was buying a house from me and I had a tenant in the house who owed me six months' rent. If I said to my hon. Friend, "1 will sell you the house but you will have to take over this bad debt as well," he would naturally say to me, "What have I to do with your bad debt? That is a matter between you and your tenant." Here are the Lords, the royalty owners. They come along and find a better way. They say, "Oh, we will not sue the coalowners for six months' rent; we will saddle the Commission with that debt." I submit that there could not be a more impudent thing for any body of men to ask in this world than what is proposed in this Clause. I should like to see hon. Members opposite who will vote for this Clause defending it in the House to-night, because the Clause, on the face of it, is very like what the royalty owners have always been; and in my opinion it ought not only to be rejected, but it ought to be rejected unanimously.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 141.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[9.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Ellis, Sir G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Apsley, Lord
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Errington, E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Assheton, R.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Everard, W. L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Critchley, A.
Gledhill, G.


Beechman, N. A.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Goldie, N. B.


Bossom, A. C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Culverwell, C. T.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
De la Bère, R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Donner, P. W.
Hambro, A. V.


Bull, B. B.
Drewe, C.
Harbord, A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Butcher, H. W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Duggan, H. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Cary, R. A.
Dunglass, Lord
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Eastwood, J. F.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Eckersley P. T.
Hepworth, J.




Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Higgs, W. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hopkinson, A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simmonds, O. E.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Hulbert, N. J.
Moreing, A. C.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hunloke, H. P.
Munro, P. 
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hunter, T.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Spens, W. P.


Joel, D. J. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Storey, S.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Keeling, E. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Porritt, R. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Procter, Major H. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Kimball, L.
Radford, E. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Law, R. K. (Hall, S.W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Lees-Jones, J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rankin, Sir R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Lewis, O.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Liddall, W. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wakefield, W. W.


Lindsay, K. M.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lipson, D. L.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Loftus, P. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Lyons, A. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rowlands, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


McCorquodale, M. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Macnamara, Major J, R. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wood Hon. C. I. C.


Magnay, T.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wragg, H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Salt, E. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.



Marsden, Commander A.
Selley, H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Mr. Furness and Major Sir




James Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Leonard, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Leslie, J. R.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Logan, D. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lunn, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Barnes, A. J.
Green W. H. (Deptford)
McEntee, V. La T.


Barr, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Batey, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
McGovern, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacLaren, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mander, G. le M.


Benson G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, F.


Broad, F. A.
Groves, T. E.
Mathers, G.


Bromfield, W.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Maxton, J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Messer, F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Milner, Major J.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Montague, F.


Burke, W. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cape, T.
Hayday, A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cassells, T.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.


Chater, D.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hicks, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.


Cooks, F. S.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Owen, Major G.


Collindridge, F.
Holdsworth, H.
Paling, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hollins, A.
Parker, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jagger, J.
Parkinson, J. A.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pearson, A.


Dalton, H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
John, W.
Poole, C. C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pritt, D. N.


Day, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Dobbie, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Ede, J. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Ritson, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lathan, G.
Sexton, T. M.


Foot, D. M.
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.


Frankel, D.
Leach, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Gallacher, W.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)







Smith, T. (Normanton)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Stephen, C.
Walkden, A. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Walker, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Watkins, F. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watson, W. McL.



Thurtle, E.
Welsh, J. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tinker, J. J.
Westwood, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

CLAUSE 10.—(Separation of vested and non-vested premises that are demised together by a subsisting lease.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11 line 16, leave out Clause 10, and insert new Clause (Apportionment of rent and determination of questions on severance of subsisting leases).


(1) In the case of every coal-mining lease subsisting on the vesting date in the case of which either—

(a) a severance of the reversion immediately expectant on the lease is effected, by the vesting in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act of that reversion as regards a part only of the premises which are comprised in the lease; or
(b) a severance of the interests arising under the lease is effected, by the vesting in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act of those interests as regards a part only of the premises which are comprised in the lease and the immediate reversion in which is vested in the Commission;

and the lease does not reserve separate rents for the several parts of the premises, the rent reserved by the lease shall be apportioned, and the parts of that rent to be apportioned to the several parts of the premises shall, in default of agreement between the Commission and any other person entitled in reversion immediately expectant on the lease and the lessee, be determined by an arbitrator selected by agreement between the parties, or in default of agreement, by the Lord Chancellor in the case of England or the Lord President of the Court of Session in the case of Scotland.
(2) Where an apportionment of the rent reserved by a lease has been made for the purposes of a valuation of a part of the premises under the Third Schedule to this Act, an arbitrator shall have regard to that apportionment for the purposes of a determination under the preceding Subsection.
(3) In the case of every coal-mining lease subsisting on the vesting date in the case of which such a severance as aforesaid is effected as aforesaid, the Commission shall pay the costs reasonably incurred by any person in connection with a reference to arbitration under Sub-section (1) of this Section or with any application to the Court that may be requisite for the purpose of determining any question as to the rights or liabilities of any person under the lease that arises in consequence of the severance:

Provided that the arbitrator or the Court, as the case may he, may direct that the Commission shall not be liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid incurred by a person who appears to the Court to have made a

reference or application or prosecuted proceedings thereon unreasonably, or to have been guilty of any such unreasonable failure to agree with the Commission or with any other party, or of any such negligence or default, as to disentitle him to payment of those costs, and, if it appears to the Court that the necessity for the determination of the question raised on an application arose in part only in consequence of such a severance as aforesaid, the Court may direct that the Commission shall be liable to pay a proportionate part only of such costs as aforesaid.
(4) A Regional Valuation Board shall cause proper records to be kept of apportionments of rent made by them for the purposes of valuations made by them and of any alteration of any such apportionment made by a referee on a review of a valuation made by them, and any entry in any book or other document kept for the purposes of this Subsection, or a copy thereof upon which is endorsed a certificate purporting to be signed by a person authorised in that behalf by the Board stating that the copy is a true copy, shall in all legal proceedings be evidence of the entry and of the apportionment referred to.

9.55 P.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Clause arises out of the difficulties which were pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) when the Bill was in this House on the Committee stage. We promised to look into them and if we found difficulties to exist to put them right in another place. The Amendment proposes to substitute new machinery for Clause 10. Both Clauses deal with the case which will arise in a good many transactions in which the interest in the coal and the surface are in the same person. Under the Bill the coal will pass to the Commission and the surface rights will remain with the surface owner. That may arise in respect of the interest under a lease or the interest in reversion. The original machinery in the Bill contemplated that that would necessitate the drawing up of two new leases, the one dealing with the coal rights and the other dealing with the surface rights, and it made provision for that being done.
On consideration of the matter arising from what was said in Committee, we have come to the conclusion that that


is unnecessary. There are sections of the Law of Property Act which apply, and where interests contained under one lease are severed recognised principles of law provide for each new landlord; in this case the Commission and the old landlord will have appropriate rights to enforce such of the original corpus of rights as was given to one or the other. Therefore, there is no need to have any document dealing with general right. What is necessary is that in cases in which the rent is not under the original lease apportioned as between the coal interests and the surface interests, there will have to be an apportionment of the rent. The new Clause provides, therefore, not for drawing up a new lease, but simply for the apportionment of the rent. If that cannot be agreed it goes to arbitration and the costs reasonably incurred are to be borne by the Commission because the apportionment has become necessary by reason of the passing of the Act. There is a proviso that the arbitrator may direct that the Commission shall not be liable to pay costs incurred unreasonably, and a provision that the Regional Valuation Board shall keep records of cases in which the Board have themselves made an apportionment. The arbitrator is to have regard to that apportionment but he is not legally bound by it because there may be persons interested in the apportionment whom it is necessary to bring before the Regional Valuation Board. Therefore, it would not be right to bind him formally for all purposes by the apportionment made by the Regional Valuation Board, although in most cases the apportionment made by the Board will be abided by.

10.0 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The explanation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given is no doubt an accurate explanation of the purpose of this alteration in the Clause and the Schedule as it left this House, but here again I venture to suggest that we see a case of, it is true, a quite small concession, but still a concession, in favour of the landowning interests. Originally, as we find in paragraph 5 of the Fourth Schedule, provision was made with regard to the costs which were reasonably incurred in giving effect to the provisions of the Schedule by a person other than the Commission.

The first qualification was that the costs must be reasonably incurred. Then it was only in the case of a mortgagee that the whole of the costs were to be paid by the Commission. In all other cases it was only
as to such part of such costs as may be determined by agreement between the Commission and that person, or in default of agreement by an arbitrator to be selected as aforesaid, to be proportionate to the extent to which the need for the transaction effected under this Schedule arose from the severance of the reversion expectant on the subsisting lease in question resulting from the vesting in the Commission by virtue of this Act of a part of the premises comprised in that lease.
Instead of that limited right as regards costs, together with the limitation that they must be reasonably incurred, we find in Sub-section (3) of the new Clause:
In the case of every coal-mining lease subsisting on the vesting date in the case of which such a severance as aforesaid is effected as aforesaid, the Commission shall pay the costs reasonably incurred by any person in connection with a reference to arbitration under Subsection (1) of this Section or with any application to the Court that may be requisite for the purpose of determining any question as to the rights or liabilities of any person under the lease that arises in consequence of the severance.
That is to say, there may be an application to the court quite outside the arbitration proceedings, and if there is any such reference the costs of it are to be paid by the Commission. There was no such provision in the Bill before. That is an added provision as regards costs which will fall upon the Commission. There may, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, be many such cases, some of which may go to the courts. The number which will go to the courts will depend on who is to pay the costs, and those which go to the courts, if every application to the court is free so far as the parties are concerned—that is to say, that the Commission has to pay—no doubt a large number will go to the courts. If, on the other hand, the parties had to pay their own costs, as they would have had to do when the Bill left this House, comparatively few would go to the courts. This is a direct incitement to give away national money to that most deserving body of people known as lawyers, but it is also putting a burden upon the Commission which had not to be borne by it when the Bill left this House. It is another case—and we are having case after case to-night—where in some little


niggling way or another those who are interested as landowners and royalty owners are getting more and more out of national funds in this transaction.
Whether it is that the Government do not observe these things, or whether it is that like Lord Nelson on a famous occasion they prefer to put the blind eye to the telescope, I do not know, but they certainly do not seem in these proceedings to be taking up the attitude of guarding the Commission and its finances against these continued depredations by the royalty owners as exemplified in their very efficient representatives in another place. We shall, therefore, oppose this Amendment, not because it is necessarily,

as regards the main part of it, any worse than when it left this House but because we believe that in the process of alteration a further concession has been given to the royalty owners and landowners, and that it is going directly to encourage litigation as regards the severance of leases, and the party on this side do not believe in the encouragement of litigation even though they think that deserving class, the lawyers, might get something out of it.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 142.

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[10.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duncan J. A. L.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, P. C.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Eastwood, J. F.
Lyons, A. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Eckersley, P. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Assheton, R.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Errington, E.
Magnay, T.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Maitland, A.


Beechman, N. A.
Everard, W. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Findlay, Sir E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Marsden, Commander A.


Boulton, W. W.
Furness, S. N.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Boyce, M. Leslie
Gledhill, G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bracken, B.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Goldie, N. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moreing, A. C.


Bull, B. B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Guest, Maj.Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Buller, R. A.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hambro, A. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harbord, A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cary, R. A.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Patrick, C. M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Porritt, R. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Power, Sir J. C.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Procter, Major H. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Radford, E. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hepworth, J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsbotham, H.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hopkinson, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rankin, Sir R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hune, Sir G. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Critchley, A.
Hunloke, H. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hunter, T.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Culverwell, C. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rowlands, G.


De La Bère, R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kimball, L.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Donner, P. W.
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Drewe, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Salt, E. W.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Liddall, W. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Duggan, H. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Selley, H. R.




Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Tate, Mavis C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Simmonds, O. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Titchfield, Marquess of
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Touche, G. C.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wragg, H.


Spens, W. P.
Wakefield, W. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan



Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Mr. Munro and Major Herbert.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wells, Sir Sydney





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffith F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Milner, Major J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Montague, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Barr, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Oliver, G. H.


Batey, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Owen, Major G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Paling, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parker, J.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parkinson, J. A.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pearson, A.


Bromfield, W.
Hicks, E. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Poole, C. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Holdsworth, H.
Price, M. P.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ridley, G.


Chater, D.
John, W.
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cooks, F. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
McGovern, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mander, G. le M.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J.



Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 13, line 36, agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Right of freeholder in possession of coal to lease thereof.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 28 after "that" insert:
(a) the right under this Section to a be conditional lease of any coal or mine shall be conditional upon the applicant's satisfying the requirements of the Third Schedule to this Act as to the registration of particulars thereof under the Registration Act and the making of a claim compensation

for the fee simple therein, and to his complying with the provisions of that Schedule that impose upon him any duty in connection with the valuation of the fee simple therein; and
(b)

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, the next two Amendments, and some Amendments to the Schedule, raise the same question, which


is that of the treatment of what we know as the working proprietor; that is to say, the mineral owner who also works the coal. Hon. Members will recollect that on the Committee stage an Amendment was moved by some of my hon. Friends with the object of taking the working proprietor out of the operation of this scheme in so far as the purely financial aspect was concerned; that is to say, his property would be passed to the Commission as well as other property in coal, but he should not receive any compensation and should not have the property valued, and there should be only a peppercorn rent. I resisted that Amendment on the Committee stage, pointing out that, although I had considerable sympathy with that type of royalty owner, who had in many cases bought the coal to enable him to carry on the colliery business more efficiently and had been urged to do so in many cases by the Government of the day, who thought it was a wise and proper thing, where possible, for a colliery company to own the coal that it was going to work, I could not accept the Amendment, because taking those people out of the valuation would have very bad results upon the whole system. That Amendment was not pressed to a Division.
However, I put down an Amendment on the Report stage designed to help this class of person, because I was impressed by one argument which had been used. One of the main objects of Part I of the Bill is to reduce the burden of rent charged upon the colliery company. Reducing the standing charge would strengthen their financial position and put them in a better position to carry on work, pay wages and make profits. That has been one of the announced objects of the Bill with which hon. Members in all parts of the House have agreed. It was pointed out that some of the working proprietors had had to pay a large sum of money to secure particular parcels of land needed for the proper development of their businesses, and that the compensation might not equal the sum which they had had to pay for the coal; and that, therefore, the first effect of the Bill would be to increase the rent charge which the Bill was designed to lower. I tried to meet that point by the Amendment, which I am afraid was rather hastily drafted. The terms of it came in for considerable criticism in all parts of the House. I

remember a phrase "unduly unfavourable" which some Members thought was either ungrammatical or not unambiguous.
In the other House the Government accepted an Amendment which has both served the purpose of redrafting a Clause the drafting of which was criticised, and has had certain definite effects other than those of the Bill as it left the House of Commons. As it left the House of Commons, this provision, although, of course, it was intended that it should be so used by the Commission that these people would not be prejudiced by the Bill, was on a Wholly discretionary basis. The effect of the Clause as now drafted is to give to these working proprietors the right to an adjustment by the Commission of the rent charged to the colliery after the vesting day and after the payment of compensation, so that the colliery company is neither better nor worse off than it was before the passing of the Act and the vesting of the property. The fact that this is now mandatory on the Commission carries with it the right of the working proprietor, if he is not satisfied that the rent is such as to leave him in the same position, neither adversely affected nor improved, to go to arbitration on the matter. On the other hand, it is laid down that this shall only apply to those people who acquired the fee simple before 10th November, 1937, that is to say, before the Second Reading of the Bill. It will, therefore, apply only to those colliery companies whose coal was bought before the Bill was ever introduced, genuinely for the purpose of developing their own business, and cannot be made use of in any way by other people to avoid any of the consequences of the Act.
We have also made a later Amendment in the Schedule which, in cases such as this, will put the Commission in the same position in which they were with regard to subsidiary hereditaments. Hon. Members will recollect that, as far as the subsidiary hereditaments are concerned, the Commission is entitled to appear and to urge that the value placed upon those hereditaments has been too high. In this case, lest there should be any temptation to the working proprietor, who, whatever happens, is going to be left as he is now, to get his property valued too low, in order that, as it does not matter to him, there may be more to go round for someone


else, we give the Commission power to appear and, if they think that the property is being valued at an unduly low figure, to appeal against it and see that it is put at a correct figure. This, therefore, will have the effect of leaving these working proprietors in the position in which they are now.
I do not accept the strictures of hon. Members opposite upon royalty owners as a whole. But even if I did, this is a class, of course, quite separate from the ordinary royalty owners. They have acquired their royalties, as they might any other piece of machinery, for the purpose of carrying on the coal-mining business.

10.26 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think we can conveniently deal with these three Amendments together, because we desire to discuss the next two Amendments but are inclined to agree with the first. Therefore, perhaps it might be as well to wait until the first Amendment is disposed of before we discuss the other two.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 39, leave out "not," and insert "which shall not in any case be."

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir S. Cripps: This is one of those Amendments which, no doubt, would be described as a drafting Amendment. But, as a matter of fact, it is an Amendment of great importance, because it is granting to this privileged class of persons—and we made it quite clear on the Committee stage why we thought they should not be treated as privileged—even better conditions than they were granted by the Bill as it left the House. The original words in the Bill were:
A lease granted under this Section shall be granted for such a term, commencing on the vesting date, as the person entitled to the lease may require, not being longer as regards the coal comprised therein than may he reasonably requisite for enabling that coal to be worked out, and subject to conditions with respect to rent and otherwise not more onerous to the lessee than the conditions customary in the district ….
That would have meant that, taking the conditions as a whole, they should not

be more onerous—that is to say, the rent might have been more onerous but some other condition would have been set off against that, and, looking at the lease as a whole, it could be said that the conditions were not more onerous than were customary for the district. But the Amendment means that every single condition and the rent must individually be not more onerous than is customary in the district. It can be easily seen that if, for instance, it is necessary, for commercial reasons, to fix a rent that is more onerous than the rent of the district, which normally might be set off by some other condition in the lease, which would, on the whole, make it not more onerous, that cannot now be done. You have, in fact, to have the maximum of benefit in every condition of the lease. When I say "the maximum," I mean it must be up to the standard of that condition for the district.
In that way, where in the district there are a number of conditions which vary in leases in different cases, you may in fact get conditions which are much better than the average for the district for the whole of the conditions. You are, therefore, improving here the conditions under which the lease shall be granted. You are giving a further advantage, and the only reason that we can see for the change of these words is in order to give that greater advantage to the person who is the owner of the royalty, and, in addition, is working the mine. This is the beginning of the class of cases where the royalty owner is also the person who is working the coal, and this is the first case where that type of person is getting an extra benefit out of these Amendments over and above the already excessive benefits which were to be granted in the Bill as it left the House.
There is one further matter, and that is in the practicability of this. It is quite easy, if you take the generality of the conditions and rent, to take a lease and put in conditions and rent which anybody able to judge and value these things would say, is not on the whole more onerous than that. But if, in every individual case, you have to say every single condition, you may be forcing upon yourself or upon the Commission an individual condition which does not suit the circumstances of a particular lease, but you have to put it there because it


is the average condition for the district. You do not allow yourself the latitude of balancing out advantage and disadvantage under one or other condition. You give yourself a rigid test by which, in every single condition—that is the only meaning of the introduction of the words "in any case"—you have to adhere to
the conditions customary in the district or, where there are no customary conditions or the customary conditions are not applicable, than the conditions to which a person not entitled to the benefit of this section might reasonably have been expected to agree.'
That is to say, though there are not customary conditions, the condition of what the person who takes the lease would have been expected to agree to not as a bargain betwen the tenant and the landlord, but what the tenant would be expected to agree to, that is to say, a beneficial interpretation of the standard of the conditions or of the covenant. If in every individual case of condition or covenant or rent you are going to force that upon the Commission, then, as I have already said, you will give these persons a very highly privileged position, and I believe that you will create conditions for the Commission in the granting of leases which will make it almost impossible for them to grant reasonable and ordinary leases in the case of such tenants.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We had a very long discussion of this problem on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I believe that an Amendment in a slightly different form was moved by the hon. Gentleman for one of the Leeds divisions. Really, this is a very simple problem because there is in the industry a real precedent upon which we can go. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade evoked our sympathy for this type of royalty owner, and he rightly assumed that for the other, at any rate, there would be no sympathy on this side of the House. It is the case where the colliery company has bought the freehold rights of the coal, and, therefore, when the coal comes to be vested in the Coal Commission, there will have to be granted a new lease.
The question arises, since he does not pay any royalty, but owns the freehold rights, what shall be the royalty charged to him when the coal becomes the property of the Commission? We have a very simple precedent on which we can

go, and we have had experience of it in South Wales. The coalowners there many years ago had to face the problem. In 1921 we arrived at a new type of agreement for determining wages and sharing the proceeds of the industry in certain ratio between ratio and profits. One of the items in the ascertainment is the royalty. The question arose, what should be the charge put into the account for royalties in respect of those colliery owners who own the freehold rights and therefore paid no royalties? They insisted that they ought to have the right to charge on their costing accounts the average royalty for the district.
Therefore, if a colliery owner in South Wales owns his own coal and pays no royalty he makes his returns for ascertainment purposes and enters in the cost of production royalty at the average royalty rate for South Wales. The price he may have paid for the freehold rights may not be equal to that average amount of royalty. It may be more or it may be less, but in South Wales I should say that the tonnage rate payable, which is nearly 8d. per ton, would be more than an equivalent of the tonnage rate paid by the proprietor for his freehold rights. That system has gone on since 1921 and since 1926 there have been quarterly returns, and that average royalty has been charged in these cases. Now, in order to assess the amount of compensation which should be made in respect of this class of proprietor, we have to decide what should be the annual royalty payment charged to him. The first question is, what is the annual value of the royalty? From the figures that have been given by the hon. Member for North Leeds. (Mr. Peake) and the figures given in another place, this type of colliery owner represents between one-eighth and one-sixth of the total output and therefore he represents one-eighth to one-sixth of the £66,450,000 compensation.
Now that the State is to own the royalties and the State has to give this class of owner a new lease, and it has to be decided what royalty per ton shall be charged, why not agree upon the valuation which these men have set themselves? Since 1921 they have claimed the right to charge in the costing sheet the average royalty for the district. Why should not the State say to them: "In your discussions with the men you have claimed


to be entitled to put into your costing sheet the average royalty of the district, irrespective of whether you are really entitled to do that. We will make that arrangement with you now." I am positive that in many cases, I should think that in most cases, in South Wales these freehold proprietors have been making profit out of this transaction, and that the tonnage value which they have paid for the freehold rights is much less than the sum they have been allowed to charge in the ascertainment. Therefore, the Commission would be entitled to say to these colliery owners that they were not treating them unfairly in taking their own valuation for the future. That is a good test. The State should be able to say: "We will accept your own valuation and give you the terms which you yourselves have insisted upon in the past."

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some comment on the very searching analysis made by the hon. and learned Member with regard to the true meaning of the Clause. If he accurately represented the situation—and one must assume that he did—I think the Amendment should be strongly resisted. It seems to me that Members of the other House are very anxious to make a meal of this Bill, and as 95 per cent. of them are friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and as he cannot allow them to do that, he has to throw them little tit-bits, pieces of sugar here and there. I presume that these Amendments are of that order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that they do not come under this category, and that there is some other explanation, the Amendment should be resisted.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) raised a practical point which, I think, I should answer. I can only say that I am advised that the words to which he referred do not and cannot bear the meaning which he attributed to them. The words "in any case," mean in the case of any conditions, and the sole purpose of inserting them is to contrast that with the exceptionally favourable terms which subsequently can be given to prevent anyone suffering loss. "Shall

not in any case" means suffering loss as to conditions being more onerous than is customary in the district, and in special cases, where it is proved that he would otherwise suffer a disadvantage, he may be treated even more favourably. That, I am advised, is the proper construction of the words, and I hope the House will accept that assurance.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: This is one more illustration of a thing which happens over and over again. We get something which means fairly definitely alpha, but in more than one place it is altered so that any ordinary lawyer, and indeed any ordinary person, would think that it means beta. Now the Minister, who has the immense advantage of not being a lawyer and therefore does not claim to know what he is talking about on a question of construction, says that he is advised that this means alpha, and he sticks to his guns. He has two advantages; one, that he can claim to know nothing about the meaning of words and, secondly, plenty of gentlemen now in the smoking-room who will come and vote for him. In the court they will say that they have not had the advantage of being allowed to be told what was said in Parliament, and that they know only that beta means beta. Therefore everyone in this House is perfectly innocent, and the Minister absolutely and utterly misinformed, of the legislation which we have passed. The only protection we can have is the presence of the Law Officer, who may know. He cannot at any rate shelter himself that he is not a lawyer, because technically and very often he is.
It is interesting to notice how the Minister explained this matter. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that the words "shall not in any case be more onerous," mean that none of the conditions shall be more onerous. I confess that I am a lawyer, and that a lawyer can often be mistaken about the meaning of words, but I cannot see any possible meaning to these words other than what my hon. and learned Friend suggested. When the President of the Board of Trade got up he explained that the words "shall not in any case" meant "not." To illustrate that, the right hon. Gentleman stated that his advisers said it means that


the conditions shall be not more onerous. Therefore, the House is presented with this singular fact. The word "not" in a perfectly reasonable and intelligible phrase—
with respect to rent and otherwise not more onerous"—
is a form of legislation which is extremely usual, and any court seeing that phrase will say, "This is just one more of those cases in which we have a task which is not nearly as difficult as it seems." It will lock at the whole mass of conditions and advantages and disadvantages, compare them, and say that on balance it is all right; it will see the word "not," and say, "That is all we have to do, and it is very simple." Now the House is asked to accept the story that in another place impartial and altruistic gentleman have taken out the word "not" and put in:
which shall not in any case be
and the President of the Board of Trade tells us that he is advised that this phrase means exactly the same thing. If it means exactly the same thing, why should

the House be asked to take out one word which has a definite meaning and put in seven words which have the same meaning, when there is in any case a very grave risk that some court will be compelled, by those rather long-winded words, to say that this means what the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol said it means? If the only thing which the President of the Board of Trade has to say in defence of this Amendment is that, although he does not know himself, because this is a lawyer's matter, he is advised by lawyers, who at any rate are not physically present in the Chamber at this moment, that it means exactly the same thing, then let us stand by it, and, seeing that what the Lords have put in means exactly the same thing, let it be left out again, and mean exactly the same thing.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 140.

Division No. 277.]
AYES
[10.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Albery, Sir Irving
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A,


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Culverwell, C. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Apsley, Lord
Davidson, Viscountess
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Aske, Sir R. W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hepworth, J.


Assheton, R.
De la Bère, R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Higgs, W. F.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Donner, P. W.
Holdsworth, H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hopkinson, A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beechman, N. A.
Duggan, H. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Heck., N.)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Dunglass, Lord
Hunloke, H. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hunter, T.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eckersley P. T.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Bracken, B.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Joel, D. J. B.


Briscoe Capt. R. G.
Ellis, Sir G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Keeling, E. H.


Bull, B. B.
Errington, E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Butcher, H. W.
Everard, W. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Butler, R. A.
Findlay, Sir E.
Kimball, L.


Cartland J. R. H.
Fremantle, Sri F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Carver Major W. H.
Fyfe D. P. M.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Cary, R. A.
Gledhill, G.
Leighton Major B. E. P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Goldie, N. B.
Liddall, W. S.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Lindsay, K. M.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Lipson, D. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grant-Ferris, R.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Loftus, P. C.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lyons, A. M.


Conant, Captain R. J. E
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M (Norfolk, N.)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guest, Maj.Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hambro, A. V.
McKie, J. H.


Critchley, A.
Harbord, A.
Macnamara, Major J. R. L.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Magnay, T.




Maitland, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Rayner, Major R. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Tate, Mavis C.


Marsden, Commander A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mason, Lt.-Col, Hon. G. K. M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Rowlands, G.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Touche, G. C.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wakefield, W. W.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Moreing, A. C.
Russell, S. H, M. (Darwen)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Salt, E. W.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Munro, P.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Selley, H. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Patrick, C. M.
Simmonds, O. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Peake, O.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Porritt, R. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Wragg, H.


Procter, Major H. A.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Radford, E. A.
Spens, W. P.



Ramsbotham, H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rankin, Sir R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Captain Dugdale and Mr.




Furness.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Barr, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.


Batey, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pearson, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Poole, C. C.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hicks, E. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cluse, W. S.
John, W.
Sexton. T. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, F. B.


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Foot, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Gallacher, W.
McGovern, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W
MacLaren, A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marshall, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mathers, G.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 2, leave out from "the" to end of Subsection (2) and insert:
conditions of the lease shall, where the person entitled thereto acquired the fee simple in the coal before the tenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be so framed as to secure that his financial position in respect of his business of working the coal shall neither be adversely affected nor improved by the fact that, in lieu of his remaining entitled to the fee simple in the coal, compensation of the amount ascertained under Section seven of this Act becomes payable in respect thereof, and he becomes liable to a periodical payment of rent of an amount fixed by reference to the time requisite for enabling the coal to be worked out, and ceases to be liable as proprietor thereof for the payment of mineral rights duty and royalties welfare levy.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

10.55 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: We regard this Amendment as one of considerable importance and one which ought to be resisted firmly by this House. I would recall to the House the form of this Sub-section as it left the House. It provided that the Commission might grant a lease to the person entitled, on conditions less onerous than the conditions which had been laid down—what we might call the average conditions of the district—where it appeared to them that the situation of that person in respect of the business of coal-mining would otherwise be unduly unfavourable as compared with his situation in that respect as owner of the fee simple in the premises. Already the House has agreed to make more favourable the average conditions. Now we are asked, not to make the grant of still better conditions optional on the Commission, and not to make the criterion, whether the average conditions would be unduly unfavourable. Instead it is made mandatory that the conditions of the lease, where ownership existed before the Second Reading of the Bill, shall be so framed as to secure that his financial position, in respect of his business of working coal, shall not be adversely affected nor improved by the fact that in lieu of his remaining entitled to the fee simple in the coal, compensation becomes payable in respect thereof and he becomes liable to pay rent and ceases to be liable to pay mineral rights duty and royalties welfare levy.
First we believe that this method of ascertaining the amount of rent is impossible to operate. Anyone who is conversant with questions of valuation for rental will appreciate how that impossibility arises. The objective is to secure that his financial position, not as a landowner, a person in receipt of rents or royalties, not as a tenant, a person who is paying royalties, but as a person who is working coal. That is to say, you have to take into account every incident in the working of the coal, and one of the things that immediately occurs to anybody is that if a royalty owner is working his own coal, in bad times he need not pay any royalties at all. That is one of his advantages: he has not to pay out any money whatsoever to anybody else by way of royalty. You would, therefore, have to put a provision in the lease, if he is to be in an unaltered financial position, that in bad times he need not pay any royalties at all, because otherwise he will be in a less favourable position than he would have been if he were the owner of the fee simple of the coal. You would have to define bad times, the conditions in which he would not pay any royalties, as being times bad in his judgment, not in the judgment of anyone else.
Let me take the case where such a company that owns the royalties customarily makes a reserve by setting aside sums of money which would be equivalent to its royalty payments to itself in order to purchase further royalties when the time comes for that necessity. Any year that company may decide that, owing to the state of business, it will not set aside any reserves and will not therefore have to pay out of its receipts any sums to reserve by way of royalty reserve. If you are to put that company into exactly the same position as it would be in if it continued to be a freeholder, you must give it that same rent under the lease in order that it may not have its conditions worsened. That is an obvious point where it will become impossible in fact to secure in any lease such conditions as are laid down by this Clause.
But there is another important point, which has already been referred to, in passing, by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). If I may take, by way of example, a hypothetical figure,


in order to show how this sum is supposed to be worked out in order to ascertain the rent, let me assume that the compensation that has been ascertained under Clause 7 and has become payable is a sum of £1,000. You have to take into account the fact that he has received £1,000, and you have to translate that into terms of annual royalty or royalty per ton. Let me assume that you translate it on a 4 per cent. basis. That will mean that you have to calculate that in future he will be receiving, by way of compensation, £40 a year. You have then to take into account the fact that he has to pay the royalties, and we will assume that that is a figure "X," which is the sum that you are attempting to ascertain. You must also reckon that he ceases to be liable for the payment of Mineral Rights Duty and royalties welfare levy. That will mean a credit as compared with his previous position. Let us assume that that is a sum of £10. But you are not merely trying to ascertain his position as a tenant, in which case you could say that the royalty rent that he ought to pay was £50, the £40 plus the £10; you are trying to ascertain his position in the business of working coal.
In the business of working coal he is to have an ascertainment of wages, and for the purpose of that ascertainment he has by agreement to include a sum payable as royalties, although in fact he does not pay it. Let us take what will probably be, in relation to the figures I have taken a fairly common sum, say, £100 If you allow him to bring that sum into the wages ascertainment you will alter his financial position because if he is paying only £50 now, in future he will have to bring into ascertainment no longer a hypothetical sum of £100, but actually a sum of £50. In other words, as compared with his pre-vesting date position, there will be another £50 which he will have to find, as to which 87 per cent., or whatever the figure may be, will have to go to the improvement of wages. So that he will suffer as a result in respect of the business of working the coal by having to devote 87 per cent. of the £50 to wages which he did not have to devote before. Therefore, you will have altered his financial position.
How are the Commission in settling the rent to solve the equation? That is the

task which you are setting them, taking alone that single figure of wages ascertainment. There may be other matters, such as rating, which will also affect his financial position owing to the change in the amount of royalty that he will pay. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the attempt to give this fresh benefit, which it is, to the royalty owners, will land the Commission in an impossible task. We think that the royalty owners have already got much too great a benefit out of this right to a lease and right to the most favourable conditions. We think that the provision which was in this Clause when it left this House, that in certain conditions the Commission had an option to grant a less onerous rent than the average rent, provided it would make the position unduly unfavourable if they did not to the royalty owner, was already an advantage.

Mr. Peake: To the colliery owner.

Sir S. Cripps: He is both the royalty owner and the colliery owner in this case. He is the owner of the fee simple in the minerals, and it is by virtue of his being the owner of the fee simple that he gets these benefits and not by virtue of anything else. Whether one calls him the colliery owner or the royalty owner does not matter. He is the person who gets these benefits. We believe he was in too favourable a position before, and that the alteration that has been made in another place has put him in a much more favourable position. It is adopting a criterion which, unless he is charged no royalty at all, is really unworkable because you can never make the position of a tenant exactly the same financially as that of a freeholder. That is impossible because the freeholder can at any moment say, "I will not pay myself rent this year because I cannot afford it."
Unless there is that provision in the lease you can never put him in the same financial position as he would be in if he were the freeholder. The mere fact that you have divided the ownership and the possession means that you cannot reproduce the financial position in which the owner found himself when ownership and possession were in the same hands. Therefore, I suggest that instead of trying to squeeze an extra benefit for these dual personalities by making this Amendment, which will make it impossible for


the Commission to operate this Clause, they should content themselves with the already too large concessions which were in the Bill as it left this House.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I have tried to understand the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and I hope that it is not through lack of intelligence that I have not succeeded. [Interruption.] He spoke of a man being in the dual capacity of royalty owner and colliery proprietor, but we are dealing with a position in which there will not be any royalty owners except the Commission, and it should be the man who was the owner in fee and not the man who is. The person we are dealing with is solely a colliery proprietor who in the past has been a royalty owner, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is completely deceiving the House in talking of this person as being in a dual position. He will be in the simple position of a colliery owner. He told us that these gentlemen, when times are bad, do not pay royalties; they ease their position as colliery proprietors by ceasing to pay royalties to themselves as royalty owners; but in future he wants them to pay royalties to the full. In other words, for the benefit of the miners, who are now a little more silent than they were a moment ago, he wants people who in the past have sometimes not paid royalties to be compelled to pay royalties in the future.

Sir S. Cripps: Does the hon. Member appreciate that in the meantime they have had their property bought at full value and been paid in cash?

Mr. H. G. Williams: That does not alter the future position. I am thinking of these who for the moment are well represented by certain hon. Members on the benches behind the hon. and learned Member. In the course of these Debates they have denounced royalties with great vigour. Here is a case in which the hon. and learned Member wants to make quite sure that royalties will be paid in the future in circumstances in which they were not paid in the past. There are not so many cheers now, I observe. Let me rub it in. It does not do any harm, occasionally, for the miners to realise into what trouble they are sometimes led by their legal representatives. Here is the great legal expert of the Labour party

pleading that in no conceivable circumstances are royalties not to be paid. That was the whole burden of his speech. The miners have been very angry about royalties, but here is a case in which their leader wants to make it absolutely certain that royalties are paid to the fullest possible amount. I hope they are thoroughly satisfied.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not know whether the hon. Member has converted or satisfied any of his hon. Friends.

Major Sir George Davies: He has upset some of yours.

Mr. T. Williams: I think the hon. Member flatters himself if he thinks that he has disturbed any ex-miner who knows anything about the position. What is the simple thing which the hon. and learned Member has been trying to tell the House? That after the vesting date the dual colliery proprietor and royalty owner will be paid by the Commission for royalties previously bought but not yet worked by that colliery proprietor. Then the Act will call upon that royalty owner, who has received full payment for his royalties, to pay an annual rent for producing coal. Is there anything wrong with that?

Mr. H. G. Williams: It may be more than he paid in the past.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that that colliery proprietor, who is also the owner of the minerals at the moment, will have received full payment for the royalties. Whether that payment is lodged in one department or another, whether the company is successful during the year or not, at least the lump sum received for the royalties will be available for the payment of the royalty rents during that year. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a speech of that description, which he does not understand himself, convinces anyone on these benches? If he does, he is paying himself a compliment to which he is not entitled.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this new Amendment is utterly impracticable, in view of the Amendment which the House has just accepted, by which words are added in line 39. It has to be shown that none of the conditions shall be more onerous than would otherwise be the case, but


one of the conditions may be less onerous; then the Amendment now under review cannot be carried out. My hon. and learned Friend has made out a case for the impracticability of this Amendment which ought to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whether or not the royalty owner who is the present-day royalty owner—who, I again remind the right hon. Gentleman will have been paid for his royalties and will no longer be the royalty owner when he has the money in the bank—may secure better terms than those existing because of the acceptance of the last Amendment. This Amendment says that the position shall not be improved. My hon. and learned Friend is right; this Amendment is impossible to administer, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to accept this Amendment from the Lords.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to draw attention to one or two points in the Amendment, which, I agree, appears to be impracticable. When the question of the global sum was being discussed in another place, the Debate ranged around the question of how this man could be assessed for royalties when he worked the coal and owned the royalties. It was then stated that that as to be determined by the output of the colliery, knowledge of the output, and putting in figures of the average royalties of the district. A few months ago I asked the Secretary for Mines what was the royalty paid in Northumberland by those who owned the royalty. At that time—I make no complaint of it—he was not in a position to give a reply, but evidently the Commission will now be able to ascertain just what amount of compensation this class of royalty owners are entitled to receive; and I would like to point out to the very clever Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) that we are dealing here with a dual situation—we are dealing with a royalty owner ho is going to receive compensation on a basis which he has fixed for himself.
It is true to say that we as miners are very interested in this matter. In my district it is not a question of some little man buying a piece of coal to enable him to work his royalty. By far the larger proportion of the colliery companies in Northumberland own the royalty, and have owned it for a very considerable

time; and they charge to the ascertainment a figure as to which the miners in Northumberland, or in any other district where the same conditions apply, have not the slightest knowledge of whether it is equitable or not. At the moment the amount charged in Northumberland is, say, 4½d. a ton for royalty, and their compensation out of the global sum will be on that basis, according to the output and, probably, the prospects. The sum which they are receiving at the moment may be—I put it no higher than may be—a very substantial sum, which, in relation to hte amount they have paid for their capital, may mean a very high return on their capital.
After the Commission takes over the royalties, they will have to pay rent themselves to the Commission, and, if there has been a wide gap between the income and the 4½d. on royalties, or, in other words, a very high rate of interest on the capital spent in purchasing the royalties, it means that they will be adversely affected. They will be paying exactly the amount which they were paying before, but which brought to their exchequer a considerable amount of money, paid, of course, by the miners. To that extent, if they continue to pay the 4½d. in the future, they will be adversely affected. From that point of view, this is a most impracticable Amendment, because if they happen to be adversely affected or no better off, what is the royalty they have to pay to allow for that margin which has been going into their pockets? We, as miners, have no knowledge of what that sum is, because it is an arbitrary sum which they have fixed themselves.
The Government, in accepting this, are accepting something which is problematical. The only way in which I can see that it might be of advantage to the miners is this. I am assuming—and I think most of my miner friends will agree with me—that when the owners fixed 4½d. as the royalty rent they would not fix a figure which did not give them a good return on their capital in the purchase, especially when they could make the bargain themselves and pass the buck to the people who were producing the coal. The owners will not want to pay 4½d. in future, because they would be worse off. Therefore, it seems to me that what they may want to pay is just the


amount of royalty rent that will counterbalance what they would be losing in receiving the 4½d. when they are the owners themselves.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place at the moment, always addresses the House in a manner of quiet—or sometimes not so quiet—confidence which would convince anybody who had not seen him before that he was speaking about something he understood. This evening, while he thought, for some mysterious reason, that he was rubbing something into the miner Members of this House, all he was doing was to confirm their knowledge that he has a habit of talking with an air of knowledge on matters of which he is abyssmally ignorant. I was almost convinced, when listening to him, I hat the anxiety about water supply is not Croydons major anxiety. His first accusation was that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) had been wilfully deceiving the House. The House received it with great calm; it was either asleep or unaware that it was being deceived. How was the hon. and learned Member deceiving the House? By pretending that the particular group of colliery owners—or whatever you like to call them for the moment—dealt with in this Amendment had a dual capacity. The hon. Member for South Croydon said they could not possibly have a dual capacity, because the operation of this Clause would divide up their dual capacities. But this Clause is entirely drawn—the question of whether well or badly drawn, I will come to in a moment—to deal with people who have a dual capacity.
The main object of this Bill is to deal with royalty owners. They are very often, but by no means always, different persons from the persons who are working the coal. I am sorry that it seems childish and elementary, but it is obvious that no one ever explained it to the hon. Member for South Croydon. When you come to people who do own the fee simple as well as working the coal, you cannot leave them out altogether. The problem of dealing with them and putting them on the same footing as other people

by splitting, as it were, their personality is a little complicated. For the benefit of the hon. Member for South Croydon, let me tell him that it is the intention of this Clause, both as originally drafted and with the Amendment put in in another place, to do that. To accuse someone of attempting to deceive the House by saying that the person involved has a dual capacity is rather like saying that Piccadilly is Tuesday.
The great thing that the hon. Member rubbed into the miners here was that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol wants these people to pay royalties in full. Hon. Members on this side of the House, while they have a great many objections to a great many things in the Bill, want the Bill to become an Act and to operate. The operation of it will be that everybody who has hitherto owned the fee simple of coal will now be paying a fixed sum per annum in respect of it. Oddly enough, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol, who believes, like everybody on this side of the House, in confiscating, and confiscating equally and not capriciously, thinks this particular class of owners of fee simple should be treated exactly like the rest. That is the beginning and the end of the trouble. That is what is called rubbing it in to the miners. The miners seem still to be entirely alive and do not really need high assistance.
I would like to say this one thing on the merits of the amended Clause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol has mentioned some of the difficulties of working it. It is very simple. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, and if he will not do it, I appeal to the Minister himself, and if he will not do it, I appeal to the Attorney-General, and if he will not do it, I appeal to the office boy, to give us a simple illustration with either "A," "B" or "X," or with £100, £1,000, or £5. Tell us how this works and then we shall know?

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 122.

Division No. 278.]
AYES.
[11.35 p.m.


Acland-Treyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gledhill, G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Goldie, N. B.
Owen, Major G.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Peake, O.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Assheton, R.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Porritt, R. W.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ramsbotham, H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Rankin, Sir R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beechman, N. A.
Hambro, A. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Harbord, A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bossom, A. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boyee, H. Leslie
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bracken, B.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepworth, J.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Higgs, W. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Butcher, H. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Butler, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cary, R. A.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Joel, D. J. B.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Keeling, E. H.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Critchley, A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Strauss, H. G, (Norwich)


Croom-Johnson, H. P.
Lipson, D. L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Culverwell, C. T.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davidson, Viscountess
Loftus, P. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lyons, A. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


De la Bère, R.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Touche, G. C.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
McKie, J. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duggan, H. J.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Magnay, T.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
Maitland, A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wells, Sir Sydney


Eckersley, P. T.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Errington, E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mills Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wragg, H.


Everard, W. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Munro, P.
Mr. James Stuart and Major


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Harvie Watt.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Benson, G.
Collindridge, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.


Adamson, W. M.
Bromfield, W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Daggar, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Dalton, H.


Banfield, J. W.
Buchanan, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Barnes, A. J.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Barr, J.
Cape, T.
Day, H.


Batey, J.
Chater, D.
Dobbie, W.


Bellenger, F. J.
Cluse, W. S.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)







Ede, J. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Ridley, G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Carro Jones, G. M.
Lee, F.
Silverman, S. S.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leonard, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lunn, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Macdonald, G. (lnce)
Stephen, C.


Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGovern, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, F.
Thurtle, E.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.
Viant S. P


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walker, J.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C


Hayday, A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Watson, W. McL.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Welsh, J. C.


Hicks, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.
Westwood, J.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Hollins, A.
Parker, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jagger, J.
Parkinson, J. A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pearson, A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.



John, W.
Poole, C. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Anderson.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pritt, D. N.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 20, after Clause 12, insert new Clauses C and D—

C. (Provisions affecting renewal of leases).—On and after the vesting date, if a leesee gives notice in writing to the Commission of his desire to renew a lease of coal or mines in force at that date not less than six months before the date of the termination prescribed therein, the consent of the Commission to such renewal on reasonable terms and conditions shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether such consent is being unreasonably withheld or whether the proposed terms and conditions or any of them are reasonable and what other terms and conditions are reasonable shall, if the lessee so require, be referred to arbitration and the lessee shall be entitled to a renewal of his lease on such terms and conditions as may be found in such arbitration to be reasonable.

D. (Provision as to arbitration).—On and after the valuation date, a clause shall be included in all leases of coal or mines granted by the Commission providing for arbitration in the case of any dispute between the Commission and the lessee in respect of any provision of the lease or any matter arising therefrom.

11.43 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendment be divided into C and D, and be taken separately."

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 20, after Clause 12, insert new Clause C.—(Provisions affecting renewal of leases.)

On and after the vesting date, if a lessee gives notice in writing to the Commission of his desire to renew a lease of coal or mines

in force at that date not less than six months before the date of the termination prescribed therein, the consent of the Commission to such renewal on reasonable terms and conditions shall not be unreasonably withheld, and. any question whether such consent is being unreasonably withheld or whether the proposed terms and conditions or any of them are reasonable and what other terms and conditions are reasonable shall, if the lessee so require, be referred to arbitration and the lessee shall be entitled to a renewal of his lease on such terms and conditions as may be found in such arbitration to be reasonable.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
For a long time it has been represented in certain quarters that there should be a right of appeal against the Commission if a lease is refused. The Amendment does not go as far as that, but it provides that in the case of an unreasonable refusal to renew an expiring lease the case should be referred to arbitration. The view of the Government is that as the Commission is to be set up with the statutory functions described in Clause 2 it should be given authority to decide this problem It is quite time that where a great deal of capital has been sunk in a colliery it would create some difficulty if shortly before the term of the existing lease expires the colliery company does not know whether it is to be granted a fresh lease or not, but as a matter of fact it is the normal custom in these days to renew the lease. The continuation of an existing colliery may however in many


cases be dependent not so much on the renewal of the lease for the same area of coal covered by the previous lease but on bringing in some fresh area which hitherto had not been leased at all. We agree that when there is a dispute about the carrying out of a provision in a lease, there should be arbitration: but the Government hold the view that the Commission is the right body to decide the main question, and that it is unreasonable there should be an ad hoc arbitration. In view of our general policy on this matter, we hope that the House will agree with us in not accepting the Amendment.

11.45 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: We are very glad that at this late hour the Government have shown a little determination to uphold the rights of the House. We hope that they will make it the closing chapter of to-night's proceedings. It would be unfortunate to end upon a note of contention, and I feel sure that the Patronage Secretary will agree that it would be much better to end upon this unanimous note of turning down the Lords.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."
In moving this Motion I would observe that the progress we have made to-day has not been very rapid——

Mr. J. Griffiths: It has been very steady.

Mr. Stanley: So steady that the movement has been almost imperceptible. Hon. Members will see that we have done only seven pages out of twenty-five pages of Amendments. It is essential that these Amendments should be completed to-morrow in order that the Bill may be sent back to the Lords. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible to finish to-morrow without sitting too late.

11.47 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I hope that hon. Members on this side have not unduly lengthened the proceedings to-day, but we feel that there are a great many very vital points raised in these Amendments. We, at least, are determined to fight for

the liberties and rights of this House to the last moment necessary, even if it means sitting up all to-morrow night.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — MILK (EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend certain temporary provisions of the Milk Acts, 1934 to 1937, to release Milk Marketing Boards and the Government of Northern Ireland from certain obligations thereunder, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such increase in the expenditure falling to be made out of moneys so provided as is attributable to any provisions of the said Act—

(i) extending by twelve months the periods in respect of which sums are to be payable to milk marketing boards under Sections one, two, and three of the Milk Act, of 1934, as amended by the Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) Act, 1936, and by the Milk (Amendment) Act, 1937 (which Act of 1934, as so amended, is hereinafter referred to as "the Milk Act");
(ii) enabling the payments which may be made under Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Milk Act in respect of expenses incurred by milk marketing boards to be made in respect of such expenses attributable to any time before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and increasing by seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds the amount which may be so expended under that Sub-section;

(b) to release milk marketing boards and the Government of Northern Ireland from any obligation to make payments to the Exchequer under Sections five and six of the Milk Act in respect of milk used for manufacture after the end of September, 1937."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to food, drugs, markets, slaughterhouses, and knackers' yards, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act in exercising any powers of a council, port


health authority, or joint board, subject however to the recovery of those expenses from the council, authority, or board in question, in manner provided by the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.